I wasn't going to write about Marissa Mayer's appointment to be CEO of Yahoo, figuring many of my fellow bloggers (ones I read, even!) would discuss it.
But as an also-7-months-pregnant woman in the tech industry, I can't let it go. I don't think it's Mayer's responsibility to *do* anything differently than she plans to do - she needs to live her life the way she wants to, and clearly she is ambitious, successful, and kickass. Go her.
What I do take issue with is so many women, and women's affinity groups hailing this as a great leap forward for us. Yes, it's awesome that another large, well known company has a female CEO. I get it. Even better that her pregnancy didn't prevent them from choosing her. (Talk to me sometime about job searching when one is pregnant - super fun.)
But, her statement about working through her few weeks of maternity leave is what gets me. I don't know what Yahoo's mat leave policy is, but I suspect it's at least 12 weeks, and possibly more. If the CEO isn't planning to take the leave, what does that say about the rank-and-file who think they need it? Especially those who feel more "replaceable"? Should we all hurry back to work?
I'm sure I'm not the only one whose male and/or child-free coworkers have made comments envious of my "5 months of vacation" coming up. (Clearly these people have not spent 24/7 with a hungry newborn.)
Yes, I get 20 weeks, and yes, that's extremely generous for an American company. But honestly it's still not enough.
At 20 weeks last time, T was still waking 1-2x per night to eat. She was getting all her nutrition from me, which meant I had to pump a couple of extra times per day for those 5 months, in addition to feeding her directly, in order to have any chance of enough of a milk stash when I went back to work because I knew I couldn't pump enough in a work day to feed her while I was gone.
In my ideal world, I would have been on leave through 9 months or so, when T started eating significant amounts of "real food" and started sleeping better. Sure there are people rolling their eyes at this, and sure it's *possible* to go back to work as soon as your medical issues are sorted out. But I think we as a country need to do better than that.
I'm not recommending that Mayer do anything differently. But I do think we need to be careful who we're holding up as our shining examples, because they might end up shooting us in the foot.
Great post. People have got to understand that leave is not a vacation. Sure, some women can and want to return sooner or work while on leave, but I think the bottom line is that newborns really need their moms. Pumping at work is nightmarish. Yes, it is do-able but it's easier for those with offices or easier depending on your boss/company. It should be an equal playing ground rather than a matter of privilege.
ReplyDeleteI think the key is realizing that everyone's support situation is so different. Some people have the financial ability (and desire) to hire a night doula/nanny, others have relatives willing to help for months at a time, and still others have stay at home spouses. But some people have none of those things, or *want* to do a lot of it without outside-the-family help, and our policies should support that. A year of leave that can be split between parents would be ideal IMO.
DeleteFantastic post. I couldn't agree more. Come to Sweden, where people roll eyes at you for taking less than a year of maternity leave!
ReplyDeleteI also can't stand it when people talk about maternity leave as "vacation." Seriously? I've gotten a Ph.D. at MIT and had a stressful job at a busy law firm, and I would rank taking care of a newborn as much more demanding physically.
Suz- I would have had a hard time in Sweden if people would roll their eyes at me for taking less than a year. I love what I do and I work for myself, so I'm working at home, which makes nursing possible. But I realized shortly after my first was born that working a few hours a day massively increased my happiness level. I think solid maternity leaves should be available, but I dislike social pressure one way or the other. My kids are thriving and so am I, so why should anyone care? My guess is Mayer's kids will thrive too.
DeleteHah, I'd love to be in Sweden because it agrees with what I want :) But I agree with what Laura says about societal pressure the other way being sucky, too.
DeleteI think it's the Netherlands or Germany, can't remember, where there are virtually NO childcare options for kids under 3 because most mothers are out for that long. So even if you want to go back to work sooner there's no support for that. I think that sucks too.
Yeah, I think the trade-off is overall good though. I'm taking less than a year off and just ignoring the rolled eyes/ comments. From an HR perspective, it's actually harder for them to find a temporary replacement the shorter the leave you take. I would take longer, but my husband is eager to start his daddy leave.
DeleteYou also can't send you kid to child care here when they are younger than 1 year old, so that makes people take more leave.
BTW during the leave you are paid 80% of your pre-leave salary, up to a certain state-mandated maximum. Some employers compensate so that you get the full 80%, if needed.
With my previous job in the US I would have had 3 months paid leave (at 100% salary), which is generous in the US. And my husband would have had no leave. Now that I'm a mom, I really have a hard time seeing how that would have worked, especially since I want to breastfeed as much of my child's first year as possible. I would have likely had to ask my mom to fly over and stay for a few months, pump like crazy, and still deal with sending my child to daycare much earlier than I would want.
Anandi - I heard from my German friends that daycare before age 3/4 in Germany is basically nonexistent. A lot of women end up quitting their jobs and staying home - another sign that parental leave policies and availability/ affordability of daycare have a real impact on workplace equality.
Wow, I am loving the Swedish system even more now that you're giving me the details. What do they think of American immigrants where neither partner is Swedish? ;)
DeleteWow, if you're seriously thinking about coming to Sweden I'd be really excited. Since both of you are non-Swedish, at least one of you would need a work permit and the other could get a residence/work permit based on the other (and your kids too). It is usually hard for immigrants (even well educated immigrants) to get work here. But in your case I don't think it would be as hard - I see a lot of job openings here where I'm sure they would be excited to get your application. Pay here is much lower though (while taxes are higher) - that's one price we pay for the greater benefits.
DeleteI have a feeling that she got 2 weeks in case she has a C-section. Even then it is difficult to heal in 2 weeks.
ReplyDeleteMay be she would return sooner if C-section is not a possibility.
Maternity leave does not equal vacaction or even rest. :)
ReplyDeleteMy guess is she won't be Breast feeding, she'll have a night nurse, and full time help. While I still think she is under-estimating how this will impact her physically and emotionally, the fact that she is a CEO at her age suggests her personality would prefer to go back to work as soon as possible, as well as work through leave.
I totally agree with the closing sentiment of this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/a-pregnant-ceo-in-whose-lifetime/259919/.. "What will be really, really fantastic is when someone like Mayer can be just a pregnant CEO -- rather than, you know, A Pregnant CEO."
My mom's reaction: Oh, she'll just have a full-time nanny in her office, no problem.
DeleteWhich is pretty much what we did when I was only out 3 weeks, only with part-time college students instead of a nanny.
I bet she will breast-feed or at least combo-feed, given her socioeconomic status and where she's living. My kid didn't have a drop of formula (and didn't start solid food until 8 or 9 months). It can be done.
Not that her breast-feeding decisions are any of our business one way or the other.
One other reaction - there is a huge (and rightfully so) differece between expectations and hours worked at senior levels of large companies and the "rank and file." I'm not sure it sends a statement to the rest of the women at Yahoo that they should be expected to work through their leave.
ReplyDeleteI dunno - she's the one that has to sign off on HR policy, etc. I think it's like the xkcd cartoon where there are so few women in certain fields/positions that anything they do is an "example".
DeleteFound the link:
http://xkcd.com/385/
I can see a lot of clueless managers, etc. thinking that it's reasonable to ask someone to dial into meetings, etc while on leave, or think that "that much leave" is unnecessary as a result.
True dat, @Anandi, true dat.
ReplyDeleteMat leave ain't no picnic.
I don't even wanna know what MM meant when she reportedly said she's "not a feminist, feminism is a bad word," blah blah snore.
Good news for women everywheres? I certainly hope so. And I don't mean the kind of putative "good news" that actually not at all substantively good news for women like say, Palin as a VP pick.
There is an interesting article in the Atlantic this month by Anne-Marie Slaughter called "Why Women Still Can't Have It All". It discusses the issue of holding up these "super women" as "proof" of the ability for women to truly do anything and everything and the impact this has on our unwillingness to change the conversation to change the conversation to be about how we build a society that enables and supports a work-life balance.
ReplyDeleteThe last line is great, when we stop talking about women having it all "we will properly focus on how we can help all Americans have healthy, happy,productive lives, valuing the people they love as much as the success they seek."
I'll be the first to admit that there is irony in the fact that I am 1000s of miles away from my family thumb typing this comment at an ungodly hour in the morning so that I can review email before my first meeting.... something to think about for sure.
Thank you for the post. L
I read that article and loved her solutions for improving work life balance. I just hate that these extreme examples are what we see in the media around the issue.
DeleteAlso, let me know when you're back so we can catch up!!!
1. You never know how hard it is until you are in the middle of it.
ReplyDelete2. Fatigue takes up a whole new meaning when you can't rest.
3. Money buys day and night nannies, something most of us don't have easy access to.
Prista
I know I'm likely in the minority, but even if we had unlimited funds, I wouldn't *want* a night nanny. We wanted to do the baby stuff ourselves. Of course we'd have no issue with outsourcing chores or cooking, though so maybe it's just another side of the coin.
DeleteI'm in that minority with you, An.
DeleteWhat's the point in even having kids if you're going to hand them off to someone else to take care of? I think that means they're just trophies of some sort.
DeleteDid you really say that, Cherish? Seriously?
DeleteWhether you're a SAHM or a WOHM it takes a fricking village to raise a child. It is not and has never been healthy to have a one adult with children 24/7 model. We will ALWAYS be handing them off to someone else to take care of, maybe not at night, but at some point. When that doesn't happen, things tend to go badly. And no, that does not mean that the kids are trophies, just that humans are social animals and need interaction with multiple people of multiple ages.
I'll make the caveat that everyone needs to make choices they can live with and what anyone else thinks is irrelevant.
DeleteBut, I see a lot of this at work and I think it's different from just daycare during biz hours (which obviously I don't have issues with).
People get their parents to come for months at a time to babysit. Great, because it's family. Not so great because this appears to me to not be as timebound as daycare or even nanny hours. People with infants are still putting in 10-12 hours a day of work just like they did before kids. They are still working weekend hours, often half or full days regularly. Some of them hire night nannies too, so they can get sleep. (Or said relatives do the night duty too.)
No one wants to have the conversation with their boss (or heck, just stop working those crazy hours and see if anyone notices?!) They say things like "thank god we have all these relatives who can come and help out" (and they do come in shifts to satisfy visa requirements) or "I wouldn't know what to do with my baby/toddler all day anyway - I'd rather work". To me, that's sad. How hard is it to figure out some activities to do with your kid, for more than a couple of hours a day?
Again, they have to live with their choices, but I too wonder why people have a kid if their family/nannies are spending the BULK of their kids' waking time with them instead of their parents.(And this cuts both ways, it's not just moms.)
I don't think work is the jailer people make it out to be, but maybe it's just a question of assertiveness? Maybe it's cultural, or maybe it's just easier to be good at work than figure out the crappy parts of parenting?
Anandi, I think it's also important to remember that different kids have different needs.
DeleteYour kid sleeps a lot more than mine does.
That must mean I'm a waaay better mother because I get more waking hours even working full time rather than part-time. Obviously if you loved your kid, you'd keep her awake longer. How hard is it to do that little thing?
(Disclaimer: not what I actually believe, but I also believe what you're saying is bullshit and judgmental and that your friends' kids are going to turn out just fine without your judging. You don't know how much time these folks spend interacting with their children and you don't know what their kids need. It is highly unlikely they're in a Secret Garden kind of situation. So, unless you're planning on calling the CPS, mind your own business.)
I have no doubt these kids will turn out "just fine". Kids in all kinds of circumstances do just fine.
DeleteBut when people make comments to me about the long hours they're working, and not taking all of their PAID leave, and how their parents are getting the kids ready in the morning and putting them to bed, yeah, I wonder what the point is. Not to mention the several people who have made the specific comment to me about how they literally don't know what to do with their babies when they're alone with them. I'm not exaggerating.
So yeah, I'm being judgy there because I don't think these folks are putting in the effort.
I suppose I better clarify. I meant that there's no point in having kids if you're going to continue working 80 hours a week and have someone else take care of them 24/7. Kids need their parents, and I, too, take issue with people putting in 10-12 hour days because they don't know what to do with their kids. That's like the worst possible rejection a person can receive: my parents don't ever want to spend time with me. If you're only going to have kids to hand them off to other people to care for the vast majority of the time, then honestly, you've only done it because it's some sort of status symbol and not because you really want to have this person in your life. I know someone who did this, and all she could talk about was what they achieved in high school because she really didn't know them as people. And when they became adults themselves, things didn't go so well for them. (Other than SES, the most important thing in child outcomes in quality of interactions with a parent...if you're not there to parent, I imagine that can't be good for the child.)
DeleteThat said, I do realize a lot of us go through periods where work requirements are much more difficult and we need extra help. As long as it's temporary (even a couple years), I understand that and have been there. But I can say that my husband says his biggest regret about doing his PhD was that he feels like he missed so much of our younger son's first 4 years of life. And I felt the same way about my two years in Minneapolis. Yes, I spent every weekend with him, but I still very much missed seeing him every morning and putting him to bed at night.
I'm not saying that day care is bad (which may have been the impression I gave, and I really apologize for that). It's not, and I feel it's very important for women to be able to go to work and pursue their career goals. But you need to go home at night and spend time with your kids...especially when they're very young. They need you, and you'll never get that opportunity back.
I agree with all of the comments regarding leave being more in line with some the Europeans on leave for a year. On the other hand I went to school with Marissa and she is a creature like no other. She juggled so much even back in school, frankly it is just the way she operates. Minimal sleep and working all of the time. She has a big heart and will be a great Mom. Could not be more proud of her.
ReplyDeleteHeidi
OK...this is going to be a long comment. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the Sweden model is that it essentially forces all women to take long leave- if there is a powerful social stigma against going back to work in less than a year, like Susan mentions above, then it would take a very strong first time mom to buck that expectation and expose herself to a bunch of judgment and go back earlier. Plus, since "no one" does that, she'd probably have to scramble to find infant care.
Now, I think that is better than the current US scenario where most women don't get as much leave as they want, but I do want to point out that it isn't utopia, either. For me personally, being out an entire year would have been the wrong choice. I'd probably have need professional psychiatric help the first time around. Going back to work really, really helped me adjust to motherhood. It just did. Both times, I was out for 3 months, and worked part time for the 4th month. I don't know what my ideal would be. Maybe 4-5 months off- because why do we insist on sending moms back to work right when growth spurts hit (6 wks, 3 months) or right in the middle of the big separation anxiety phase (9-12 months)?- followed by 3 or so months working part time. But I would have wanted to keep some contact with the office in those 4-5 months, like I did during my 3 month leaves.
(And, for what its worth, neither of my kids slept through the night in their first year. My husband and I were still up multiple times per night with the first one well into the second year- until she suddenly just started sleeping through the night at about 2 years old. My second was up less often in the first two years, but still doesn't sleep through at 2.5. There is no amount of maternity leave that will guarantee you won't have to figure out how to work while also dealing with a child who doesn't sleep through the night. But... back in the really rough early days with baby #1, when my husband and I were both working part time, the person who was staying home with the baby the next day was the one who got to get a little more sleep. We thought that was harder than either of our jobs.)
In my perfect world, we all really, truly accept that different arrangements will be right for different families, and set up our institutions to handle that. Some families will want the mom or dad to take a year off. Some families will want to split time between mom and dad. Some families will want both parents to go back to work within that first year, and will want to use outside help to make that possible. Some families will want one of the parents to stay home until the kids start school. Some families will want one or both parents to work part time. Etc., etc. All of these are valid choices. Each choice presents problems. The best approach isn't to pick one option and "bless" that by making society work around that. The best approach is to recognize the diversity of needs and wants, and try to set up society to provide the basic building blocks that families need to build their own solutions. So, good, quality child care at prices everyone can afford (probably a sliding scale). A protected right to pump at work. Maternity leave options that make it possible for a new mom to stay home a year if she wants, which requires better temporary labor markets (i.e., ones that don't deprive the temps of benefits). Better "on ramps" for people coming back in after multiple years off. Heck, we're dreaming, so why not make it possible/more accepted to bring babies into the workplace and/or have better asynchronous work from home options?
(splitting into two, due to length restrictions....)
(here's the rest)
ReplyDeleteAnd while we're in my perfect world... yeah, Marissa Mayer can be one type of role model, and a great one. And someone who took 5 years off and then came back in and went on to a great career could be another type of role model. And someone else (like you, Anandi!) who worked part time for awhile and still had a great career could be yet another type. And so on and so on. There is not one path to a successful life- heck, there isn't even one definition of what a successful life is. The problem for women is that there are so few role models in the public eye, so each new prominent woman is elevated to an impossible pedestal of being THE role model. That is BS.
w0rd.
DeleteThanks @Cloud, and I agree with the BS-ness of one person needing to be THE role model, or needing to be any role model at all.
DeleteIn my Utopia world, which I suspect is much like yours, it would be possible to be CEO *and* take your whole mat leave without having to work through it. Possible, not mandatory, of course.
I will say that I think Mayer is a great role model for any girl or woman who wants to be CEO in today's f-ed up American work culture.
Amen ya'll. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Mayer plays the game extremely well, and Anandi you're spot on: she's "a great model for someone who wants to be CEO in today's f-ed up American work culture." Indeed.
DeleteWhat NicoleandMaggie said. And, as a side note, I have witnessed in my extended family the sort of downside @Cloud mentions, a European-family-side mom who went back to work before a year, taking part-time work (because she wanted to) that paid less than what she received as a maternity-leave stipend, and losing the whole stipend because she did so. Yet I totally got it and would have done the same: going back to work was by far the easiest thing I did as a new mom (and that in turn reflects a great combination of (a) balance between me & dad; (b) extended family help; (c) good paid childcare; and (d) a wonderfully flexible employer -- I'm not saying my experience was or should be everyone's nor that it would even be available to everyone no matter how much we might want it to be -- still, it is one among the array of possible experiences and preference sets).
ReplyDeleteThough not completely related, the solutions proposed here are somewhat similar to what TJ and I discussed several years ago. There should be the option of "personal leave" that you can use for whatever - kids, long vacation, new puppy training,eldercare, whatnot that everyone is entitled to, men and women, parents or not, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean for the eye-rolling-in-Sweden comment to translate like "strong social pressure." I just got an eye roll from the HR person when I told her I was planning on a six-month leave, and I'm just ignoring it. I'm already the office weirdo for my other non-Swedish habits!
ReplyDeleteI don't think women here are "forced" to take a year off, at least not from the social policies here. The men get leave too. You can, for example do a 6 month mom/ 6 month dad split (reserving the other 6 months of shared leave for later use by either or both parents) and still send your child to day care at age 1, when most kids began daycare.
Also, the way you take leave is really flexible. It's actually counted in days, not months. You can take a "part time leave" and work the other days in the week, etc. Some women start working one or two days a week after the first few months, reserving some days of their paid leave for later. (You can use the parental leave time up until when the child is 8.) It's all about working it out with your employer.
I don't argue Sweden is utopia either (Just read my blog at impropaganda.blogspot.com), but in terms of parental leave policy, I really think they've got something good.
I remember reading in the Economist long ago that, in countries with long maternity leaves, most women work in the public sector. The article further implied that private companies actively discriminate against women during the hiring process, because they don't want to have to pay for long maternity leaves. So, I wonder if mandating long leaves might actually set women back. For, I see the only way that things will change is when we reach a critical mass. And, how can we reach a critical mass in a company that won't even hire us?
DeleteIt probably depends on the social/cultural context of where you implement the policies. I don't think the long leaves sets women back in Sweden (though Sweden is far from having true work equality between the sexes, it is way ahead of most other countries).
DeleteI work at a private company, and at my job, I see a lot more women
1) at all
2) in management positions - though not at the very top, executive board positions
3) who are pregnant
compared to what I saw in the US at my law firm job or in grad school. I also see a LOT more men taking their daddy leave. Most of the men at work have been taking 6 or 9 months' leave. I think I never saw that many pregnant women in work contexts in the US because even getting pregnant was discouraged; people had to plan children around work/career more rather than the other way around. I think that I'm having more women colleagues here because you can more easily have kids and still have a career/job here.
It's a totally different culture here.
Ginger and Suz are both right. Sweden is special (not Norway) because of its incentives for Paternity Leave reducing the negative unintended consequences of generous maternity leave on women. http://www.20-first.com/1380-0-how-sweden-has-successfully-dealt-with-the-problem-of-maternity-leave.html isn't a scholarly article, but it does a good job of summing up the actual research.
DeleteIt's not just culture, but culture driving gov't policy and gov't policy changing culture. Prior to the paternity leave policy changes, there weren't so many men pushing strollers in Sweden.
N&M: Great link. I wanted to find something about that to share. One thing I would like to point out is that we should all remember that what works for you may not work for others. Example, in Laura's case, she works from home and loves her job. Most people like their jobs (I hope) but adding a commute and being in the office is very different from WOHM. And I think Anandi says it best, or at least echoes my thoughts, just because you CAN outsource to a nanny or daycare in the first year, doesn't mean you want to. I really think women should work if they want to, and I think a longer mandated leave would benefit MOST women, who often don't have family support, extra funds, or are very sleep-deprived during that first critical year. Let's also think about women who don't even work in offices..those working in restaurants or retail.. who most likely don't have understanding bosses or a private place to pump. I really believe at least 6 months (ideally a year) would benefit more women overall.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect summary of what I'm thinking. The option for a longer leave should be there, with no penalty to taking it.
DeleteYou guys would love the discussion about this going on at work. I've had to sit on my hands a few times, since my comments there would likely be more detrimentalto my career :D
But suffice it to say that high ranking managers bragging about how they didn't even take all of their paid leave does not inspire me with a ton of confidence...
I think we are all fooling ourselves if we think there's something special about the first few years that requires more of our time and attention than the rest of childhood. Our kids will need us more, not less, as they get into the tween and teen years. Sure, there won't be those first steps or first words, but there will be other firsts. Firsts that require a lot more time and effort and parenting on our parts. First crush, first kiss, first breakup, etc. Sleep deprivation aside, as the momma to three under six, I think the hard part is yet to come.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, they get easier as they get older. The middle and high school years are by no means fun, but how things are when you get there is going to set the tone for how they go. If you get to teenage years without having a pretty firm bond established, things are going to be pretty miserable because they'll opt to go to someone else for their 'counsel' and you'll spend a lot more time stressing than you need to.
ReplyDelete