# Longer Maternity Leave for Moms at Companies Like Yahoo Raises Questions About Equality for Dads



## Melanie Mayo (Apr 1, 2010)

*From CNN*

Quote:


> Nine months after Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer gave birth, she is extending Yahoo's parental leave policy.
> 
> Both new mothers and fathers at Yahoo can now take eight weeks of paid parental leave, *and the mothers can take an additional eight weeks.* What's more, new parents will also receive $500 to buy items like groceries and baby clothes.


*From Dice*

Quote:


> Following the backlash from its recent telecommuting ban, *Yahoo has doubled its paid maternity leave for new mothers from eight to 16 weeks. But new fathers didn't fare as well - they'll continue to have only eight weeks' leave under the new policy.*
> 
> Yahoo's approach is just the latest example of fatherhood getting the short-shrift in family leave, which is echoed across a number of companies and industries. But in the technology industry, which is largely male, this discrepancy is magnified.


*What do you think? Is it an injustice to fathers to give them less leave? *


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Of course this is an injustice to fathers. Why would a woman get double the leave?


----------



## appalachianwomyn (Dec 31, 2008)

Honestly it makes perfect sense bc that is still very important time for a nursing/lactating woman to establish her supply. Dad love their kiddos as much as mothers, of course, but biologically speaking can't do all that a mother can in regards to nourish their offspring. People have to be able to wrap their heads around this. All things are not created equal.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Yes, it is discrimination on the basis of sex. Inherently unjust.

Whether the child is breastfed is not a useful criteria for determining whether a parent is entitled to leave. If it were, then any mother who decides to formula feed - for whatever reasons including medical - would not be entitled to the same leave as another. That's ridiculous and also obviously unjust.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping*
> 
> Of course this is an injustice to fathers. Why would a woman get double the leave?


Because she is the one recovering from pregnancy and childbirth.

Because she is (hopefully) breastfeeding, and may need the time to establish breastfeeding and get comfortable with pumping.

Because the mother generally handles the bulk of childcare.

Why should the fathers get more leave?


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Maybe the mother generally handles the bulk of the childcare because our society persists in creating and maintaining obstacles for fathers to participate in parenting. Obstacles like discriminatory attitudes and discriminatory leave policies.

Why should the fathers *not* get more leave? I have yet to read a good explanation. Fathers can and do care for newborns under all sorts of circumstances.

The parents - mother and father or mother and mother or father and father or however the family is created - ought to decide on how they will share their parenting, not a corporation and not the government. The only way to allow free and fair choice is to provide the same access to benefits such as *PARENTAL* leave.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Not everyone's family is the same and not everyone breastfeeds. There are single fathers, sometimes women make more money, women own businesses, etc. Men are only entitled to half the time women are because they don't have breasts?


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> Because she is the one recovering from pregnancy and childbirth.
> 
> ...


They shouldn't get *more* leave, they should get the *same* as women.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

When I asked why should fathers get more leave, I did not mean more than the mothers. I meant more than the 8 weeks being offered.

And, as I said, not just because of breastfeeding. Mothers are recovering physically from pregnancy and childbirth. For that reason alone women should get more parental leave than men! When a man goes through pregnancy and childbirth, THEN he's entitled to the same amount of leave! If my husband has a heart attack, and is on leave, recovering, I do not get leave. Why would I?

Fair is not same. The leaves should be fair. That does not mean they should be the same duration.

Companies cannot offer huge amounts of paid leave to both men and women, and stay in business. I think 8 weeks, 2 months, is great for dads. Realistically, pushing for more is likely to result in a cut in leave for both genders. Sorry, but the payoff for the men is lack of morning sickness, lack of swollen feet, lack of GD, etc. They'll just have to 'make do' with the benefits they already get, in my opinion.

I think the paternal leave is great! My husband took two weeks off when our son was born, and it was helpful.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> When I asked why should fathers get more leave, I did not mean more than the mothers. I meant more than the 8 weeks being offered.
> 
> ...


Allowing fathers the same amount of leave doesn't mean that birth mothers get less time than they need for recovery.Your argument isn't logical. Extending equal benefits to both doesn't somehow interfere with a mother's recovery. She can take the leave if she wants or needs it. No one is saying that she cannot. It would be between her and the father to decide who will take leave and how much. Equal access to benefits will allow families the flexibility they need in all sorts of individual circumstances to care for their child and establish and strengthen their new relationships.

I'm curious whether you think adoptive parents are entitled to parental leave after a child enters their family. After all, neither parent goes through labour and delivery in an adoption.

BTW, in many countries, parents are entitled to much longer family leaves than 8 weeks and the businesses flourish, as do their societies in general. 8 weeks or 16 weeks, either way, is a pathetic length of time for parental leave.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

If women are expecting a reward of 8 extra weeks of paid vacation just because their pregnancy sucked (and I had the pregnancy from hell!), I would remind them that no one asked them to get pregnant. Why does a child get relegated to daycare 8 weeks early because his father took parental leave? What if it's two men who adopt a baby and they never had the choice to begin with of sending the woman on parental leave? What if a woman adopts? Does she only get 8 weeks if her ankles didn't swell up? Is she then not entitled to stay home for the extra 8 weeks and breastfeed because she didn't have morning sickness? Getting pregnant and having a child isn't some kind of added benefit to the company that someone should expect a reward for. It isn't like we're providing a service to people around us that our coworker's should be grateful to us for.

The CEO of Yahoo made $36.6 million last year... I don't think matching parental leaves for men is going to put them out of business.

Having said that, I work for a much much much smaller company and I got 60 weeks of paid mat leave... larger companies in the US should be ashamed of themselves for not offering vacations or parental leaves for their employees while their CEOs make millions.

Offering men the same parental leave that women get isn't going to take away from women's mat leave, it's going to make the company think twice about hiring women because they have to give them twice as much time off as a man gets... so as usual, we'll have to work twice as hard for half the pay because we want special entitlements because pregnancy is hard. I guess at least we don't have it as bad as women who can't have/don't want kids?


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

I am all for having parental leave that applies to any parent, and I think it should be a minimum of 16 weeks.

Where I work, there is no parental leave at all. You just use your sick time and vacation until it's gone. If that's not enough time, you can do FMLA, but that means no pay & no benefits. So in that way it's "fair" to everyone...whether you're female or male, a parent or not, you get the same leave policy. In practice, of course, it's brutal for many working parents.

At least, it was for me. I had only been on the job for 3 months when I got pregnant, so I did not have a lot of sick time banked up. My whole pregnancy, I tried to use as little leave time as possible, and I worked until the day my labor began. I am sure that exhaustion from working full-time was a huge factor in how difficult and long my labor was. I was able to scrape together 8 weeks of leave time, but of course I used up almost the whole first week in the hospital (2 whole days for the labor alone!). I was able to stretch it out a bit by dropping to 50% time for the month I returned to work, which allowed me to "ease" in (at half pay, of course). I was having major breastfeeding issues, and the doctor helping me offered to recommend me for FMLA, but I told her I'd have no pay and no health insurance, that made using FMLA impossible for me.

If we're going to be "fair" by offering everyone the same leave, regardless of their circumstances, then that leave should be very, very generous.

That's my 2 cents.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

The amount of leave is not bought by a difficult pregnancy or birth. Those *are* physical things, however, and the woman *may* need the additional time to recover.

No, adoptive parents would only be entitled to 8 weeks, by my argument, since there is no physical recovery. Could the family use more time? Perhaps. Would it be nice if they could have the time? Perhaps. Is it going to happen? Not in a huge move. Maybe, in baby steps, we'll get there, someday. In the meantime, being positive and encouraging about *is* given would encourage companies to consider giving a bit more.

As to the other comments. What is illogical about discussing physical recovery, be it childbirth or heart attack? It is illogical to think that everyone is entitled to the same thing. When I had my son, I got only 6 weeks paid leave. I arranged for unpaid leave, in addition to the six weeks. My husband was a consultant, so he didn't get paid for the two weeks he took, either. We had to plan for that time off without pay. That's life.

I am amazed by the sense of entitlement. There are places where women don't get paid leave at all, nevermind the men. It's not the same all over the world. It's this attitude that men are supposed to get what the women get that really surprises me. When women get paid the same as men for the same work, then I'll worry about women and men getting identical parental leave benefits. But that's not really happening, yet. It might be better than it was twenty years ago, but there's still areas where women struggle.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

60 weeks -- that's 15 months! More than a year! Where do you work? Lots of women will be wanting to work there!


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

A mother struggling with breastfeeding issues should be able to get additional leave. Unlike a bottle, which alternative caregivers can give, breastfeeding issues such as latch problems or low supply need the specific person, the mother, to work on the problem. Dad cannot do it for her! Complications from delivery may require her to take additional leave. Dad cannot heal for her!


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Why would the child be getting sent to daycare 8 weeks early because the *dad* took paid leave? That argument doesn't make sense to me. You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

Mothers and fathers rarely work for the same company. Indeed, there are some companies that forbid marrying a fellow employee. My sister and her husband were fired for violating that rule, as soon as higher ups discovered it. So what difference does it really make if the men and women are getting identical parental leave? The wife of Yahoo dad may be working for Xco, and get only 6 weeks, so dad gets 2 more weeks than mom. Is *that* 'fair'? No. That's life.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Wow, you guys have a lot of rules for things that don't matter and none for things that do. Here a husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife could work in the same company... no one says anything, in fact, I'm pretty sure it would be discrimination if someone was excluded from a job because of their spouse. It just doesn't look good if one works directly under the other.

Also the 60 weeks paid maternity is not at all weird here. By law we get 52 weeks and our vacation continues to accrue, so because I happened to have my son in April, I was able to go from Jan to April without using any of my 4 weeks vacation and 4 more accrued during my 52 weeks and I have to use them up immediately after my statutory mat leave. The only thing out of the ordinary I got were a ton of sick days I had banked which they made me use before I went on mat leave so if you add those up, it ended up being almost 16 months.

Almost all (if not all) developed countries have at least 12 weeks legislated paid mat leave and vacation days. It's ridiculous to hear anyone talking about 8 weeks as if it were a privilege. I'm not saying that to put anyone down, but ladies in the US need to do something about that... you're getting screwed... and before anyone starts talking about bankrupting the government or businesses, it has nothing to do with them so small businesses couldn't care less if they hire a pregnant lady, it won't cost them any more to employ them. Our mat leave is paid by employee-funded employment insurance. When a baby is born or adopted, a man or a woman is entitled. They can even split the time and both be off for half a year each either at the same time or one after the other.

I guess since a husband and wife evidently can't be employed by the same company, the point about which one goes on mat leave is moot, but it still remains a disadvantage to women when trying to get hired simply because the company will realize if she gets pregnant, they'll have to give her twice as much vacation time as a man.

So if a man and a woman don't have to be treated fairly at a company, how about two employees performing exactly the same job, exactly the same pay and have a baby at exactly the same time. Employee A gets 16 weeks because their ankles swelled but employee B only gets 8 because theirs didn't? I bet employees C & D will get tired of a bunch of employee A's around because they have to do their job twice as long.

You don't have to understand my point if you don't want to but there are at least 42 countries outside of the US that do.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Are you saying the US is NOT a developed country? Have you polled people in those 42 other countries?

No one said a woman gets an extra 8 weeks just because her ankles swelled! You are twisting my words. It makes sense that a person who went through something that requires healing would get more time off than someone who being granted time to bond. If you don't understand that point, I give up!


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Are you saying the US is NOT a developed country? Have you polled people in those 42 other countries?

No one said a woman gets an extra 8 weeks just because her ankles swelled! You are twisting my words. It makes sense that a person who went through something that requires healing would get more time off than someone who being granted time to bond. If you don't understand that point, I give up!


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

From Wikipedia on parental leave policies around the world: 

Only four countries have no national law mandating paid time off for new parents: Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland and the United States.

Here is a Huffington Post article about best and worst leave policies around the world. Guess where the U.S. is in the rankings?

The U.S. falls far short of other countries when it comes to supporting and nurturing new families. It can do so, so much better. Why aim to be the lowest, or even the middle of the pack? The nonsense about "too costly" to businesses and a drag on the economy cannot be believed. Many countries with generous paid parental leave policies have stronger economies than the U.S. right now. Their businesses are doing well. Their children are performing better on health surveys, international education achievement tests, and have lower crime rates.

The U.S. has always been an innovative, "can-do" nation. A world leader. A superpower. I don't believe that it cannot manage to do what so many other countries have done.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> Are you saying the US is NOT a developed country? Have you polled people in those 42 other countries?
> 
> No one said a woman gets an extra 8 weeks just because her ankles swelled! You are twisting my words. It makes sense that a person who went through something that requires healing would get more time off than someone who being granted time to bond. If you don't understand that point, I give up!


Everyone knows the US is on the list of developed countries... that's not even an argument.

I still don't get why a woman deserves an extra 8 week period in addition to the 8 week period she allegedly required to recover... was she not being a mother while she was recovering? I had a c-section and it didn't even take me 8 weeks to recover. By 8 weeks I couldn't even tell anything happened to me... I was also at home by myself with my son after two days.

Women are tanks, we don't need an extra 8 weeks if the argument is that we deserve it because pregnancy is rough... we shouldn't feel entitled to special treatment because of it. Just because we went through hell, doesn't make men any less important as parents. To be honest, if I had the choice of being pregnant or watching someone be pregnant, I'd pick being pregnant. I hated my pregnancy and couldn't wait until it was over, but having to watch someone go through that and being expected to be supportive and empathetic is probably more emotionally taxing, so we can't exactly pretend that men get off scott-free.

I won't lie, I'm a mom too, if someone wants to give me special benefits, I'll take anything I can get, but I wouldn't feel right about it that someone else doesn't get the same benefits just because of their gender.


----------



## kathymuggle (Jul 25, 2012)

My 2 cents:

Have a parental leave policy - have it run by the government (as I think most are?)

Let the parents sort out who is going to take the leave, or if they will split it. We know what works for our families.

I live in a country where the par. leave is around a year (at about 55% of gross pay).

While I love that kind of par. leave, I think anything over 6 months is fine. That would be enough time for most people to firmly establish breastfeeding, you might not even have to pump (and not dealing with a pump does increase the likelihood of BFing success, I suspect). I doubt it would impair businesses or cause people to reproduce like bunnies - it doesn't in other countries.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

IF leave was funded by the government, you might have an argument. I don't have a business employing lots (a vague number) of employees, so I don't know what companies can afford. Good friends own a restaurant, though, and they can't afford to provide health insurance for their employees! So, I think it's feasible that smaller companies couldn't afford to have an employee out for a year. Is everyone else supposed to pick up the work of the one who is out?

When I was out on leave, two employees divided the bulk of my work, and a third helped out. While it worked for three months, I can't imagine them doing that for a whole year! And what if someone in our group went out on leave? It wasn't the kind of work a temp could do on an as-needed basis.

And only 55% of pay. In the US, I think most maternity leaves are at full pay. When you talk about parental leave, I think automatically you mean at full pay. Also, 6 weeks is typical, in my experience. I also heard that Canadian leave is only 48-50 weeks, split between spouses. The way it was phrased sounded like each parent could get a year off.

The argument could be made that new parents don't need a year off.

I watched many women return to work after just 6 weeks, and they were walking zombies! I wanted the extra time, so I made arrangements for additional, unpaid, leave. Companies might be open to unpaid, additional leave, should the mother want it. I think Yahoo's offer is great!

Different countries do things in different ways. Some things are better here, and others are better in other countries. That, too, is life. I don't want to get into an argument about which country is best.


----------



## librarygirl (Nov 18, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> And only 55% of pay. In the US, I think most maternity leaves are at full pay. When you talk about parental leave, I think automatically you mean at full pay. Also, 6 weeks is typical, in my experience. I also heard that Canadian leave is only 48-50 weeks, split between spouses. The way it was phrased sounded like each parent could get a year off.


Where do you know of in the U.S. that provides full pay on maternity leave? Seriously? I was thrilled when I learned that my current job pays 60% for 4 weeks (and nothing after that), because I had never had a job that had paid ANYTHING for maternity. And I don't work in food service or for small businesses.


----------



## chispita (Jun 15, 2011)

Before I go back and read all the replies - those 8 weeks only given to women are almost certainly FMLA, though fully paid.

I also work at a high tech company and we get something similar - 8 weeks only for mothers due to FMLA. And then additionally there's parental leave, independently of parent's sex, gender, etc. of X weeks. I was curious to see how my company compared to others in the sector, and this seems to be pretty standard even though it' never truly spelled out it news articles - you mostly see "Company X offers N weeks maternity / parental leave", and then in the small print as you read along it will say that only a certain number of those are avilable to fathers or whatever.

ETA:

Don't assume the 8 weeks of parental leave are fully paid - they might or might not be, don't know that much about Yahoo, but in my company the X weeks of parental leave are X/3 fully paid, and 2X/3 unpaid. Giving the FMLA time to mothers as fully paid also seems to be a standard in tech companies.

I do think that women require recovery time from birth, and that it's a good thing that it's independent of parental leave. Is 8 weeks enough or too much? Honestly, I don't know. But 8 - 14 weeks parental leave (which seems to be normal in high tech companies) is, in my opinion, nowhere near enough. Sure, it's better than nothing, which is what the law in the US gives - but that's not the comparison we should be drawing! We should be looking at other countries with higher percentages of women who return to work, and more household equality.

Personally I think somewhere between 6 months and a year and a half would be good, with at least half the time fully paid - and compulsory paternal leave independently of whether the big chunk of time can be divided between the parents.


----------



## Pookietooth (Jul 1, 2002)

I think it's just Yahoo being cheap, trying to find another way to divide people up, and a general insensitivity to fathers (and to deny that any role they play besides breadwinner is important).


----------



## jtapc90 (Jul 3, 2012)

While I do think dads need time off to adjust and get to know their new family, women need the extra time to heal from pregnancy and childbirth and get breastfeeding established. Even if the woman chooses to not breastfeed, she still needs the time to physically recover. Yes, adoptive parents and same sex couples deserve to have some time off but not as much as the woman who *just* gave birth may need. I'm sorry but it just not the same but that is just my opinion.

When I worked they wanted me doing stuff I wasn't supposed to do, like lifting 40 pound stools so I could mop the floor, and after a while I was given much more work than I had started out with and then more than anyone else was doing. I didn't feel strained from the heavy lifting because I was doing this before I got pregnant but when I hit my second trimester I did begin to feel it in my back. I never used my pregnancy as an excuse to not be able to work but when I became aware of other people being allowed to leave and it was requested of me to clean their appointed stations more and more frequently I felt like I was being pushed into quitting. My husband was concerned for the baby's and my health and when I was around 5 months pregnant he demanded that I not go in anymore. There was also no paid maternity leave and time off was limited to 6 weeks. After I was told to take all the time I needed for prenatal appointments, which wasn't often since I worked from 5 PM and could schedule before that time, I was repeatedly made to feel guilty or burdened even though I had someone to cover me. So whether or not that is how it was supposed to be or not, it happens, and worse happens to other women and we need time to recover, more so than a couple who has just adopted or even dad.


----------



## Dawn Garbeil (Jan 24, 2005)

Facts are facts. Mothers are the primary caregivers of babies in our culture. That is OK. Everything doesn't need to be "fair."


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

I somehow don't think women would be OK with the whole "everything doesn't need to be fair" thing if we didn't have way more rights than men.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping*
> 
> I somehow don't think women would be OK with the whole "everything doesn't need to be fair" thing if we didn't have _way_ more rights than men.


What rights do women have that men don't have? Please. Enlighten me.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I think it's a mistake to look at something like giving new mother's additional leave as discrimination against men, as if we can legislate everything to be fair for men when we disregard the fact that the system is inherently biased against women due to the legacy of oppression that is thousands of years in the making. But then if women get a seeming legal advantage over men in some situation, people cry that it's gender-based discrimination. Well, yes, of course, because sexism against women also affects men, negatively in some cases.

That said, if they are extending leave, they should extend it to either parent, and parents who have adopted as well as parents who have given birth. If they have a lot of married couples working at the same place, and giving the leave to both parents at the same time would be hard on the company, then maybe they can offer a choice. My understanding that in the US, FMLA extends to both parents whether they are biological or not, and that it is unpaid, and many would not choose to take it.

I don't understand how we can live in a world where men can walk around topless in public, but if women walk around topless, they can be arrested for public indecency. There is no reason why women's nipples should be criminalized while men's nipples are not. Yet when I suggest that there is no difference between women being topless and men being topless, people disagree vehemently. We already know how the majority of US society views the two. But if a woman who has gone through something that is significantly biologically different from a man, like giving birth, suddenly it has to be fair and everyone should get the same thing. If a mother is breastfeeding and the parents gets divorced, the man has equal rights to overnight visits in some case, with women being told to wean. Because otherwise it wouldn't be fair to men, as if somehow we live in a fair world. We don't. People influence the political process in a way that benefits themselves.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> What rights do women have that men don't have? Please. *Enlighten me.*


Everyone has the same internet that I do, why should I spend my time trying to convince someone of something they've already made their mind up about?

I started my career out in family law (then labor law, then corporate) and it became evident very quickly that men have almost no rights. They don't have the right to choose to *be* parents, they don't have the right to choose *not* to be parents. Women can choose between keeping a child, adoption or abortion. Men get no say... and the "man enough to have sex, man enough to pay child support" argument is BS. If women were held to that, we wouldn't have the option of abortion or adoption. If a woman chooses adoption, there is no jurisdiction I know of where a man will be given an option to adopt the child. I don't mean in cases where a woman abandons her child and signs over parental rights, I mean where a woman contacts an adoption agency and voluntarily relinquishes her child. "Pro family" laws prevent men in nearly every single case from preventing the adoption and having access to their own child. Breastfeeding mothers are given special accommodations (at least here) and they can keep children from their fathers for years.

I'm a feminist, but at the same time, I have a son. I'm terrified of what can happen to him if he has children with the wrong woman because I know full well that he'll have next to no rights no matter how well I try to raise him. I could have no access to my grandchildren because as we know, "women are usually the primary caregivers" and what they say, goes. Some ladies seem to have no problems crying when something is an injustice to them but aren't overly concerned when men get raked over the coals, because "life's not fair and women were oppressed for so long." Yup, women were oppressed, but they're in a much better position today than they were a few decades ago. That doesn't make it right to stomp on men now that we can.

I agree that there are some grey areas where not everything can be made equal, but when we're talking about an employer giving paid vacation to new parents, it seems a little unfair that women receive twice as much as men when it can very easily be made fair. It's very short-sighted to see this as a good thing for women.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

In the US breastfeeding does NOT influence visitation, and children are forced to wean just so the fathers get their entitled visitation, than then frequently those same men don't bother to pick up the children, so weaning is forced for no reason!

I am far more concerned with the rights of children than men. Breastfeeding provides nutrition that is superior to anything else, as well as providing for the child's emotional well-being. The father's "rights" just don't compare, in my opinion. And giving men opportunities to parent doesn't make them better parents. Women remain the primary care givers, and no amount of paid leave is going to get a man off the couch to change a diaper!

Are all men selfish and lazy? No. But try reading some of the threads started by women who have to wean because of custody decisions, etc to get an idea of how fair rights really are.

I, too, have a son. I am worried about whether he'll have children with the right kind of woman. Will she care enough about the children to breastfeed? Co-sleep? Attachment parent? Use gentle discipline? Will she resent my involvement with my grandchildren?

But there is NO WAY to legislate relationships, which seems to be what you are trying to do.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Maternity leave is a medical leave.

Parental leave is a different entity. It is NOT medical.

At Yahoo, men and women are both entitled to 8 weeks parental leave. Here, in the US, that is rare. It is identical for both men and women. Therefore, it is fair.

Also, at Yahoo, women who have given birth are entitled to up to 8 weeks medical leave. That seems reasonable to me. Here in the US, as described in previous posts, that is generous.

I like the leave policies as I have outlined them.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

How does giving men the *option* for the same amount of parental leave as a woman legislate relationships?

Parenting is far more than just breastfeeding, changing diapers and recovering vaginas. I'm also far more concerned for the rights of children than I am of adults, but I don't see how depriving a man an extra 8 weeks going to benefit the child? Wouldn't having a father around for an additional 8 weeks benefit the child more?

...and just for the sake of argument, even though he's still to this day never once changed a diaper, fed or bathed my son, having my husband around for the first 4 months was truly helpful for my breastfeeding because he was the one carting my c-setioned, sleep deprived butt all over town to lactation consultants, hospital appointments and scavenger hunting for herbs and tinctures.

You're right, being given the opportunity to stay home for 16 weeks isn't going to force any man to get up off the couch and change a diaper, but can we for a moment consider the fact that some men might *want* to? ....and let's get over ourselves for a second... how hard is it really to change a diaper?


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping*
> 
> How does giving men the *option* for the same amount of parental leave as a woman legislate relationships?
> 
> ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping*
> 
> Everyone knows the US is on the list of developed countries... that's not even an argument.
> 
> ...


So, what happened? Full recovery by 8 weeks, or it took four months?

This makes me doubt the other things you say as well.

Now I expect to be given a warning for attacking, and have my privileges to post on this thread suspended. Good day to all!


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> So, what happened? Full recovery by 8 weeks, or it took four months?
> 
> ...










you mean there was a conversation when you didn't doubt every. single. post I wrote? Show me!! lol


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> In the US breastfeeding does NOT influence visitation, and children are forced to wean just so the fathers get their entitled visitation, than then frequently those same men don't bother to pick up the children, so weaning is forced for no reason!
> 
> ...


Sometimes I think MDC stands for Men Don't Count.

Bt the way, your future co parent of your sons child has no need to resent your involvement with her child - she can prevent it.


----------



## kitteh (Jun 25, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> Maternity leave is a medical leave.
> 
> ...


This is the way I see it, and I DO think that it is fair. I absolutely believe that the US has a long, long way to go and that 8 weeks shouldn't be considered generous, but for now it is. But the point is that Yahoo's Parental Leave allowance IS equal--8 weeks for both parents for bonding with a new child, be it adopted, foster, or biological. CA has the same thing called Paid Family Leave. My husband and I are BOTH entitled to the same amount of leave (just 6 weeks, @ 55% pay) in order to bond with the new baby.

And, as pek64 pointed out, women who need to recover from childbirth and pregnancy are given 8 weeks of MEDICAL leave in which to do so, which also seems quite fair to me. In CA I get 6 weeks to recover, with the possibility of 4 additional weeks to be taken before the birth if my pregnancy warrants it. This is Medical leave, and is paid by the State Disability Insurance into which I pay each pay period. I have to be signed off by a Dr or midwife in order to verify that I do indeed have a medical need for the time off. I don't see why any parent--foster, adoptive, or father--who does not have a true physical, medical NEED to recover and recuperate would also be entitled to this additional leave.


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

I think it would be wonderful for fathers to get time off as well. I doubt many would actually take it though. Here's why, FMLA only pays 60% of your pay. Short term disability is also just 60% of your pay.

Escaping I'm glad you have a vagina of steel and all but I for one would have appreciated the extra time with my son. We needed more time for breast feeding and his NICU stay was 2 weeks which left me 4 weeks at home with him. 4 weeks to battle the creeping depression and handle all the damn bills that started to pour in. This isn't the suffer olympics or the place the pound your chest and talk about how you can do it and so can everyone else.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> I think it would be wonderful for fathers to get time off as well. I doubt many would actually take it though. Here's why, FMLA only pays 60% of your pay. Short term disability is also just 60% of your pay.


Actually, FMLA is unpaid leave for up to 12 weeks. It basically just protects your job, but it's unpaid leave.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/fmla.htm

Individual employers can obviously decide to offer some pay with the leave, if they wish.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> I think it would be wonderful for fathers to get time off as well. I doubt many would actually take it though. Here's why, FMLA only pays 60% of your pay. Short term disability is also just 60% of your pay.
> 
> *Escaping I'm glad you have a vagina of steel and all but I for one would have appreciated the extra time with my son. We needed more time for breast feeding and his NICU stay was 2 weeks which left me 4 weeks at home with him. 4 weeks to battle the creeping depression and handle all the damn bills that started to pour in. This isn't the suffer olympics or the place the pound your chest and talk about how you can do it and so can everyone else. *


Thank you... but my vagina has never actually been tested on children so I have no way of knowing that for sure. I was actually one of the people advocating for more time but that's ok, a lot of what I say seems to get misinterpreted. Perhaps I need to work on my communication skills.


----------



## kathymuggle (Jul 25, 2012)

I tend to think a certain amount of leave should be medical leave - to recover from the birth of the baby. 6- 8 weeks should do it. After that, a larger chuck of time should be designated as parental leave, and either spouse can take it or they can divvy it up...

A little OT, but I wish the self employed could someohow get maternity leave as well. Parental leave here is tied to EI, so only those who pay into EI can get it. I wish there was a better safety net for people on contract or self employed. The number of women I know who own small businesses (frequently daycares) who go back to work when their baby is mere weeks old is shocking. They go back because they need the money. The other loophole is those who work very part time. You need to acrue a certain number of hours in a certain time period to get maternity leave - and if you work less, you are out of luck. I get that it prevents people from working for a few weeks just to get mat. leave, but it also prevent those who legitimately and work very part time hours from gettin leave. Where I work about 1/6 the population would never qualify for mat. leave and some of them have been here for years. I am rambling - I love Canadian mat leave, but there are some loop holes that need closing.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I tend to think a certain amount of leave should be medical leave - to recover from the birth of the baby. 6- 8 weeks should do it. After that, a larger chuck of time should be designated as parental leave, and either spouse can take it or they can divvy it up...
> 
> A little OT, but I wish the self employed could someohow get maternity leave as well. Parental leave here is tied to EI, so only those who pay into EI can get it. I wish there was a better safety net for people on contract or self employed. The number of women I know who own small businesses (frequently daycares) who go back to work when their baby is mere weeks old is shocking. They go back because they need the money. The other loophole is those who work very part time. You need to acrue a certain number of hours in a certain time period to get maternity leave - and if you work less, you are out of luck. I get that it prevents people from working for a few weeks just to get mat. leave, but it also prevent those who legitimately and work very part time hours from gettin leave. Where I work about 1/6 the population would never qualify for mat. leave and some of them have been here for years. I am rambling - I love Canadian mat leave, but there are some loop holes that need closing.


I believe that loophole has been closed. Self employed people are eligible for all 52 weeks if they choose to pay into EI. Also, professional associations usually have programs to supplement what EI pays... lawyers get $750/week up to $9,000.

The requirement is only 600 hours within the last 52 weeks so it's really not *that* much.

The biggest problem with being self employed and taking parental leave is just finding a way to keep your business going.


----------



## kitteh (Jun 25, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping*
> 
> If women are expecting a reward of 8 extra weeks of paid vacation just because their pregnancy sucked (and I had the pregnancy from hell!), I would remind them that no one asked them to get pregnant. ... Getting pregnant and having a child isn't some kind of added benefit to the company that someone should expect a reward for. It isn't like we're providing a service to people around us that our coworker's should be grateful to us for.
> 
> ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping* I still don't get why a woman deserves an extra 8 week period in addition to the 8 week period she allegedly required to recover... was she not being a mother while she was recovering? I had a c-section and it didn't even take me 8 weeks to recover. By 8 weeks I couldn't even tell anything happened to me... I was also at home by myself with my son after two days.
> 
> Because the two leaves are for two separate things! I think it would be horribly unfair for an employer or the state to say that parents--male, female, gay, or straight--get 8 weeks for bonding with their children but that a woman who is physically recovering from something that has been categorized as a medical disability doesn't deserve separate or extra time to do so, because she ought to use her parental/bonding leave time to do that. What if I were to have a heart attack around the same time that I adopted a child. Should I not be entitled to my medical leave in order to recover, because I'm going to be off work anyhow for parental bonding? I ought to just use those 8 weeks of parental leave to recover from my heart attack too.
> 
> ...


To be quite honest, I'm rather surprised by the tone of hostility that comes across in these posts! I don't think women are asking for an unfair advantage or reward when asking for extra time off to recover from hard labor/major abdominal surgery, and I'm shocked that anyone would look at it that way.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kitteh*
> 
> To be quite honest, I'm rather surprised by the tone of hostility that comes across in these posts! I don't think women are asking for an unfair advantage or reward when asking for extra time off to recover from hard labor/major abdominal surgery, and I'm shocked that anyone would look at it that way.


If you read my comments in context, you'll see that the argument was that men should *also* have what women are getting, not that women should get *less*.

I'm still kind of new here so I'm not sure if I'm just not communicating my points properly or if people just have an uncontrollable need to argue over everything.

Also... sorry for the tone but I'm finding people here getting more and more hostile and it's getting a bit tiring to come back here and find certain people constantly quoting and objecting to everything I say.


----------



## kitteh (Jun 25, 2009)

But men DO get the same as women--both get the exact same amount of parental leave, as does any new parent regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or biological relationship to the child. People who have not been pregnant or given birth do not need the 6-8 weeks of medical leave because they have no medically justified need for physical recovery.


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

No escaping you're not communicating what you apparently mean. Let's see you called time off after the birth of a child a reward and I read somewhere else where you called women using services welfare queens. Reread what you have written then read through MDC and check out your audience.

Also backpeddling and stating we're not understanding you is not warranted. The tone is important.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

LOL this is where I got roped into saying what someone interpreted as me saying women don't need the extra 8 weeks last time and then I got told I have a vagina of steel... so I'll try to make my reasoning for my comment a bit more clear this time.

Women get twice as much time because the first 8 weeks is called "medical leave". But just because a woman is on medical leave doesn't mean she isn't being a mother. So what I was saying, is that if they think men only need 8 weeks, women should also only need 8 weeks using their logic. The company could say that she can just recover while she's on maternity leave anyway, and shouldn't need parental leave because she must have done something other than sit there for 8 weeks "recovering".


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

That's not what you said at all. But whatever


----------



## kitteh (Jun 25, 2009)

What about my heart attack scenario? Say I were to adopt a child, and around the time that the child arrived I had the misfortune of suffering a heart attack. Should my employer or the state be able to deny me access to medical leave in order to recover from the heart attack, under the assumption that I would ALREADY be taking off 8 weeks for bonding with my child, so I might as well kill two birds with one stone? I mean, it's not like recovering from a heart attack makes you UNABLE to bond with your new family member, or vice versa, right?

I see what you are trying to say, Escaping, but I just see it as horribly flawed logic.


----------



## kathymuggle (Jul 25, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping*
> 
> I believe that loophole has been closed. Self employed people are eligible for all 52 weeks if they choose to pay into EI. Also, professional associations usually have programs to supplement what EI pays... lawyers get $750/week up to $9,000.
> 
> ...












I looked it up, and you are right.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/video/sew.shtml

I have known 3 women in the last 5 years or so who went straight back to work after giving birth, and usually it was because they needed the money/did not qualify for parental leave.

Did Harper do something right????? (where is that "passing out" smilie?)


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CI Mama*
> 
> Actually, FMLA is unpaid leave for up to 12 weeks. It basically just protects your job, but it's unpaid leave.
> 
> ...


Mine would be covered with my company. I got 6 weeks disability and the FMLA was actually another 6 to 12 weeks and a portion was covered by Aetna insurance.


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Escaping*
> 
> Everyone has the same internet that I do, why should I spend my time trying to convince someone of something they've already made their mind up about?
> 
> ...


condoms


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Nevermind.


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> condoms


I wonder how it would go over if that's what adoption agencies said to women too.


----------



## kitteh (Jun 25, 2009)

My 3 yr old is testament to the fact that condoms sometimes fail!


----------



## Escaping (Nov 13, 2012)

My 1 year old is a testament that hormonal IUDs fail lol
Today it's funny and I'm glad it happened but at the time it was nice to know I had options and I wasn't being forced into parenthood.
I can't imagine how men feel when they have to wait patiently to be told how the rest of their life is going to go whether they like it or not.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My answer is "it depends."

Let's say on the day the woman gives birth, her husband ends up needing his appendix out. Both have had a medical event they need to recover from (and I was up and moving two days after my appendix came out and hardly able to move at all for right around 2 months after my birth that had complications.) Both have just had a baby. Is the dad elgible for medical leave for his appendix? Is medical leave offered for things other than birth? And then, if he does get medical leave, is he expected to forfeit his paternal leave because the medical event happened on the day the baby was born?

If he would get both medical leave and paternal leave in that scenario, then the mother should as well. If he wouldn't, then the mother shouldn't.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

I know someone who had a heart attack, and was out for months, though it's too many years ago for me to recall how many months. His job was held for him. That much I know. Did he have to use vacation time to cover some of the time out, I don't know. Did he receive any portion of his salary while he was out I don't know. More importantly, I don't know Yahoo's policy on other medical leaves. To debate this well, we would need to know about medical leave policies at Yahoo in general.


----------



## Tenk (Oct 6, 2006)

I totally disagree. Men do not need the same time off. Most companies DO NOT OFFER 16 weeks to moms, most only offer 6 for normal pregnancy/birth so I think both genders should feel pretty darn privileged to have what they do. Remember the US has the least amount of paid time off after baby than any other civilized country in the entire world.


----------



## jtapc90 (Jul 3, 2012)

This thing is acting wacky. I was trying to do a thumbs up and it took me to reply???


----------

