So What If Yahoo's New Dads Get Less Leave Than Moms?

Dawn Kawamoto writes "Yahoo rolled out an expanded maternity/paternity policy that doubled the family leave for moms to 16 weeks. But new dads at Yahoo get only 8 weeks. It turns out that Yahoo is not the only Fortune 500 company to short-shrift news dads. But, really, do new dads think it's worth crying over? Hmmm...changing diapers or cleaning up code — both are messy, but one smells less."

Comments

Equal rights

[BitZtream]

Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.

Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.

This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.

Re:Equal rights

[BitZtream]

I should add, its ironic that ultraliberal California doesn't consider this illegal, but Ruby Red North Carolina prevents such discrimination.

Re:Equal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.

So are women by preventing them from being given a break by the father and by relegating her to primary care giver whether or not she would rather get back to work faster than the father.

Re:Equal rights

[HaZardman27]

That's quite understandable, but if a new mother and new father at the same company with the same job title and same salary each have children in the same year, and the new mother gets more paid time off than the new father, how is that not discrimination?

Re:Equal rights

[jeffmeden]

Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.

Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.

This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.

Then don't think of it as man vs woman. Think of it this way: if a human being comes out of you, you get an extra 8 weeks off. You can be a man OR a woman; as long as a human being comes out of you, then you get the time. See how that works?

Re:Equal rights

[hedwards]

Under normal circumstances women need less than a week. And in general giving birth is considered the equivalent of day surgery. The main exception being for c-sections.

Remember that as a species we used to have to be on the move constantly, and having women need 16 weeks to recover from giving birth would likely have meant the death of the species.

What's more, there's absolutely no evidence to back up the belief that babies require more bonding between them and their mother than with their father.

Re:Equal rights

[MozeeToby]

Also, bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.

I agree that it usually is but I see no reason that it should be. Fathers who start involved stay involved and one of the most common reasons fathers stop being involved is that the mother is 'better' at doing things. Better at soothing, better at putting the baby down for a nap, faster diaper changes... and why is that? The innate bond between mother and child? Probably has something to do with it. But isn't it possible that a big chunk of that being "better" at taking care of the baby stems directly from the extra time mother's get with their newborns?

For the record, I would have killed for 8 weeks off when my daughter was born. And I still think it's wildly unfair to give mothers more time than fathers.

Re:Equal rights

[s0nicfreak]

Then they are discriminating against people that can not give birth. That includes men, some women, and some people in between.

Re:Equal rights

[Kongming]

bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.

Not everyone agrees with you.

Re:Equal rights

[0100010001010011]

Except in 30 years that kid could likely be taking care of you in a home or driving a bus or even being a Dr taking care of you. Your cat won't.

Nearly every single other country in the world realizes that long term they're better off if kids are taken care of from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Re:Equal rights

[SirGarlon]

It's not discrimination for a company to say "we don't want to give lots of paid leave to both parents." It is discrimination to say "we arbitrarily decide one parent deserves more leave than the other."

In other words, I am fine with giving extensive parental leave to only one parent -- but I think the beneficiary, not the employer, should decide which parent deserves the benefit. I think in more than 90% of the cases, it will be the mother who wants it. I could be wrong about that, and even if I'm not, real equality includes having the freedom to switch roles if you want.

This is, of course, complicated by two factors. Most couples don't both work for the same company, so the employer can't tell who is taking time off to be the primary care giver. That could be addressed by making the employee sign some papers promising he/she is really using the leave for child care. Another problem is that mothers have medical recovery, but that could be addressed by having separating medical leave from parental leave and having them run consecutively (not concurrently) when appropriate.

Re:Equal rights

[interkin3tic]

Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.

If you think that's bad, not only do I get less maternity leave than a woman would, but the men's room DOESN'T HAVE TAMPONS IN IT!!!

[/s] Lets not make overly broad declarations. It's only discrimination if the situations aren't actually equal. Which it isn't. Physically if nothing else. I went back to work a few hours two days after my kid was born (voulontarily, to keep things going in lab), my wife at that point still couldn't really walk. Postpartum depression also is a thing women have to deal with, while we don't.

I'd like to hear the reason for the discrepancy before I condemn it as sex discrimination. I know some of you are really anxious to find something about the rare female CEO in a tech company to cry foul about, but this is not necessarily discrimination.

Re:Equal rights

[Hatta]

You joke, but it's really not fair that people who choose to have kids get leave that the rest of us don't. I have to work harder to pick up the slack because of your lifestyle choice.

It's also worth pointing out that providing the same amount of leave to childfree individuals would decrease discrimination to some extent. Surely when employers are interviewing women of child bearing ages, some of them are hesitant to hire because they expect to have to deal with a major leave of absence in the future. Giving everyone the ability to take a leave of absence would level the playing field.

Re:Equal rights

[ewibble]

That no excuse, under the same rule you could pay women less because they have a period. Or maybe give women extra days to recover? The same thing isn't happening biologically so it justifies different employment conditions?

Both are discrimination, It should be based on the person who is the primary care giver to the child. In general that would be the mother (I am assuming) but it is possible that it is the father and in that case the man deserves the same amount of leave. As for the physical recovery that should be sick leave. 8 weeks is a long time to recover from child birth.

Re:Equal rights

[93 Escort Wagon]

Because the man didn't grow and eject said child from his own body.

There is a difference, and it is a significant one. Men at Yahoo should be happy they get any paid paternity leave. It is quite generous by industry standards.

It's a fact that women will, on average, outlive men by several years. However the courts have declared that when women and men pay the same amount into a retirement system, it is not legal to offer the women a lower monthly retirement benefit.

When policies have been found to discriminate against women, the response by courts has been clear - you can't treat women and men differently, even if there's some fundamental difference that's causing you to draw that distinction in the first place. Given that, I don't see how it's relevant that the woman "ejected" the child from her body - both parents are equally important to that child's well being.

Re:Equal rights

[Reverand Dave]

If you seriously think that Fathers have less of a bond with their children than mothers, then you, my friend, are part of the fucking problem.

Re: Equal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

government usefulness rate of 2000%

Re:Equal rights

[SuperAlgae]

I'm not sure exactly how much of your statement is sarcasm, but for anyone claiming that biological differences justify this, you should be careful what you say lest someone hold you to it. Do biological differences really mean a father should not be given equal opportunity to spend time with his child? In the reverse case, how readily should we accept "biological" arguments for giving women lesser treatment? Also remember that a policy like this creates a perverse incentive to favor employing a man instead of a woman-- he's less of a financial liability.

Re:Equal rights

[viperidaenz]

Leave is easier to plan for an usually not as long.
Death or quitting means you can replace them.
Extended leave while guaranteeing their job placement means you either need to increase your head count if you want to replace them while they're gone or hire an expensive contractor. So so bad for a large company, not so good for a small one.

Re:Equal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't take 16 fucking weeks for a woman to recover from giving birth. Obviously most of that time is simply for spending with the new child. New fathers should receive an equal amount of time because it's just as important for them to spend time with their child.

Re:Equal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Fairness is not about everyone getting the same things. It's about everyone getting what they need. Since people are different, they should get different things.

Re:Equal rights

[phoenix_rizzen]

Especially if its a first pregnancy!

We were in the hospital for a week, and she was basically in bed for another 2, and not fully-recovered for over a month!

A *LOT* of physical (and emotional, hormonal, mental, etc) happens during a pregnancy, and a lot of physical trauma occurs in child-birth. It's not "equivalent to day surgery", except maybe if it's the fourth or fifth child.

If you haven't been in the delivery room with a woman screaming in pain, and had to live with said women after the birth, you really are *NOT* qualified to comment. :)

Re:Equal rights

[Belial6]

People are bent because it is wrong. We have decided that we want a society with equal rights between the genders. This is not equal. Men have gotten the shaft when it comes to children for most of the time society has existed. We are finally getting to a place where we don't have to take one for the team when it comes to spending time with our children vs. actually feeding our children. Now is the time to speak up and say that discrimination is wrong.

Would your defense of Yahoo! be the same if the discrimination was drawn along racial lines instead of gender?

Re: Equal rights

[tempest69]

INCOME TAX + SS + Medicare + State Income + State and local Sales + Gas + property + plates + fees + utility franchise fees + workers comp tax + tolls +liquor taxes + other sin taxes + corporate income tax + a whole bunch of stuff
is going to come pretty dang close to the 51.1% for the median family.. The numbers can be moved around some, but taxes are paid something fierce. We just break is down into chunks that each seem fair, some of it falls on the employer, so it is hidden.
I'd take 51.1% total tax in a heartbeat to have really good government services. I'm paying pretty close to that for a system with few safety nets, few employee protections, and for insurance that has been pillaging the population.

Sweden isn't utopia. But I don't hear horror stories from my friends who are Swedish nationals.

Re: Equal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to south america or somalia...those are going to be your best bets. Just don't bitch that the gubmint isn't helping when you get raped and robbed.

Re: Equal rights

[scot4875]

I don't give a shit about tax rate. Quality of life is the only measurement that matters. If I can have a high quality of life and freedom to do what I want with a 100% tax rate then by all means, take it; I don't care. Money is just a means to an end.

--Jeremy

Re:Equal rights

[Jarik C-Bol]

That's it! Fine! No one gets any more days off for anything! Your all equally screwed! That's what you get for complaining! Suffer in silence you!

Re:Equal rights

[Hatta]

If someone is perpetuating the species

That's their choice. I choose not to. Neither choice is "right". The perptuation of the species is irrelevant really. What matters is that individuals make free choices. If those free choices lead to perpetuation of the species, that's OK. If those choices lead to the species dying out, that's OK too.

If anything, it's the people who think the Earth needs another little them to suck up resources, and who think they deserve a big chunk of time off, who are conceited and entitled.

Re: Equal rights

[msauve]

"I'd take 51.1% total tax in a heartbeat to have really good government services."

Rejoice, you've found the answer! Move to Sweden.

Re:Equal rights

[kenh]

You are obviously choosing to ignore the one great difference between men and women - it's the woman that bears the child, the man does not.

They are treating everyone equally - every person that actually delivers a baby gets three months paid maternity leave. Every person that impregnates another person gets two months off. That "tends" to fall along gender lines, but let's consider same-sex couples:

• If two men "arrange" for a surrogate to carry their baby, do both men get two months paid leave?
• If two women "arrange" for a surrogate to carry their baby, do both women get three months paid leave or two?
• If two women draw straws and one of them carries a baby and delivers, do both women get three months paid leave, or does the woman that carried & delivered the baby get three months paid leave and her partner gets two months?

I suspect the answers to the above answers will show the policy to be legal and fair, and by the way, if the whiners are going to have any impact on Yahoo to change their policy, I strongly suspect they will back on the benefit for new mothers 33 1/3% rather than increase the father's paid leave 50%.

Re:Equal rights

[atriusofbricia]

You are obviously choosing to ignore the one great difference between men and women - it's the woman that bears the child, the man does not.

They are treating everyone equally - every person that actually delivers a baby gets three months paid maternity leave. Every person that impregnates another person gets two months off. That "tends" to fall along gender lines, but let's consider same-sex couples:

• If two men "arrange" for a surrogate to carry their baby, do both men get two months paid leave?
• If two women "arrange" for a surrogate to carry their baby, do both women get three months paid leave or two?
• If two women draw straws and one of them carries a baby and delivers, do both women get three months paid leave, or does the woman that carried & delivered the baby get three months paid leave and her partner gets two months?

I suspect the answers to the above answers will show the policy to be legal and fair, and by the way, if the whiners are going to have any impact on Yahoo to change their policy, I strongly suspect they will back on the benefit for new mothers 33 1/3% rather than increase the father's paid leave 50%.

Ah, so you're from the camp that defines equal in whatever what you want. So, women should get the same pay as a man for the same job (they should), they should have the same chance for a promotion as an equally qualified man (they should). Oh, they should get the same time off as a man? No, they get more because they're women.

Your logic could also be easily used to justify lower pay for women (they tend to get pregnant and leave you in a lurch), fewer promotions (same reason) and probably other things I haven't thought of.

You cannot argue for equal rights between the genders and then turn around and say that a clearly unequal policy is equal because it "tends to fall on gender lines". Policies are either racially and gender blind or they are not. I'm not saying whether I'm for or against women getting more time off. What I am saying is that you cannot simply construct some backwards logic to say that this is 'equal' in the manner in which it is unequal and therefore not discrimination.

The policy at hand is clearly discriminatory and blatantly unequal. Whether that is a bad thing or not I leave as a separate question but by supporting the policy you support discrimination and unequal policies and there is no way around that.

Re:Equal rights

[Maxo-Texas]

Well, then wouldn't it also be equally fair to avoid promoting and giving equal raises to females because they have babies and are much more likely to "mommy out" during hard projects than men? (Last big project- 4 women mommy'd out. They came back a couple weeks then quit to be full time mommies. Number of males who "daddy'd out"- zero.

Wouldn't it be equally fair to consider that females need more expense on restrooms and milk rooms than men so the men get bigger raises?

Wouldn't it be equally fair to say since the mothers are much more likely to stay home or go home when children get sick that it's fair to promote them less and give them lower pay if the individuals in question do so?

If we are going to ignore the extra costs of treating females equally, then we should treat men equally for policies like this.

But you know what I saw? Pretty damn blatant discrimination by women for women. In one lay off, 80% of the male managers went and all the managers retained were female. One had been a manager for less than six months. The executive who decided who would be laid off was female. If a male did that, it would have been an instant lawsuit.

And then there is the lovely, "the weekends and nights are dangerous so the men have to work them and the females get to skip them... but everyone has to equally be there for the 9am monday meeting."

Not to mention women wearing shirts so low you can see their bras while the guys wear polo shirts. Everyone should wear polo shirts. Or a girl showing that much cleavage should told to button up or go home. Cripes- about three years ago one young lady leaned over the table in the meeting and you could see her belly button. If she had complained- the men would have gotten training sessions- not her.

Equal is equal. This isn't equal. Things are not equal. They probably never will be.

Re:Equal rights

[cayenne8]

Hey, as long as men can continute to get paid more, then cool.

I mean, it *is* the women having the kids and having to miss all that work and disrupt the business groups.

So, as long as they keep it that way, I suppose fair is fair....the guys are having to take up the slack not only for births, but also when kids have to be picked up from school for being sick, or school holidays, etc.

It is even worse if you are a single guy, the whole office expects YOU to work all the time to pick up the slack for their time off they need for 'family' time. Single guys should be paid the highest rate since they have to clean up for everyone else needing all that time off.

Sexist

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't be so sexist about it. They should offer 16 weeks to any human employee that gestates a fetus, and 8 weeks to the partner of the gestater. That way it's not sexist.

Sperm Donors, That's All We Are

[CanHasDIY]

At least, that's how Corporate America seems intent on treating male parents.

Society, too - basically, if you have a penis, you are considered tertiary to the rearing of a child. Look at custody battles - The mother is given the benefit of the doubt almost without exception. Case in point, my ex-sister-in-law has documented psychosis, multiple suicide attempts on her record, and a known history of violent behavior, whereas my brothers record is sterling; yet she was given damn near full custody of my nephew anyway.

One has to wonder if the unbalanced treatment of fathers in our society has anything to do with the number of them who bail on their spouses/offspring...

Re:Sperm Donors, That's All We Are

[Jason Levine]

You see this reflected in sitcoms too. The dad is the idiot who couldn't be trusted to look after the kid if the mom set everything up beforehand and just needed an adult to keep the child from climbing on the counter and getting to the knives. The mom is the all-knowing, ever-right parent who suffers through the dad's antics and who could keep the children occupied (safely, mind you) if all she had on hand was a crayon stub and a diaper.

Back in real-life, I've heard of dads harassed because they were taking pictures of their kids in public because a man taking a photo of a kid = pervert but a woman taking a photo of a kid = loving mother. Dads will be patronized about being "babysitters" for their kids (what I'm doing is PARENTING, not BABYSITTING). Stay at home dads are still looked at as being "less than" for not going to the office to work.

In general, dads are considered minor parenting figures. It's alright if they're around, but the mom is the official parent and knows much more by virtue of being female. The irony is, if dads were given more respect as parents, more would take on more parenting responsibilities, more would stay home with their kids, and staying home with the kids would finally cease to be viewed as "women's work." In other words, increasing dads' rights and respect helps dads and moms.

Re:Sperm Donors, That's All We Are

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in real-life, I've heard of dads harassed because they were taking pictures of their kids in public because a man taking a photo of a kid = pervert but a woman taking a photo of a kid = loving mother.

I had a bad case of this and I'm not even a dad. I'm 10 years older than my little sister and look a bit older than I am. I used to take her to the park often. One time I had a camera on hand and began snapping photos of her playing on various things. About a half hour passes and I'm approached by a police officer asking what I'm up to. I tell the man I'm here with my little sister. He asks me about my camera. I tell him I've been taking her picture. Then he asks me if he can see the pictures. I ask him what business he has and called my sister over to explain to him who I was.

Apparently some random mother thought I was a predator and called the cops on me.

Why shouldn't dad's get equal treatment?

[Anonymous Coward]

This inequality just furthers the discrimination between the sexes in our society. By giving men less leave, they are saying that men are less inportant and/or less effective when it comes to childcare. What if the mom doesn't get any leave at all? What if mom wants a break after 8 weeks? Or what if the mom completely abandoned the kid to the father? I see no excuse for this.

As a stay-at-home dad and former IT worker

[Anonymous Coward]

I would never, ever, give up the time I've spent with my child for a job. Your children are only ever that age once. To miss that time with them would be far greater loss than anything else.

Missing the point...

[grmoc]

Ensuring that men have and *must take* as much leave when a child is born ends up improving equality *for women*, as now employers have no productivity basis for discriminating against women w.r.t. having kids.

I'm not sexist...

[FuzzNugget]

...and I'm a guy, but even I'll say it: don't you think that the mothers have just a little more to deal with? I mean, they just pushed a 3-5kg or so sack of flesh out of an an orifice in their body, they're spending any number of hours day and night feeding the thing, they're bodies are readjusting from various hormonal changes...

Maybe, just maybe, giving moms more makes a bit of sense.

What the hell happened?

[onyxruby]

Not only is the policy blatantly sexist (coming from a female CEO makes this even worse) but it actively discourages Dad's from participating in their kids lives. This perpetuates the myth that only women can be active parents and has no business in the 21st century. There is absolutely no reason that a father can't provide just as good of care and be just as involved with raising their child as the mother.

Sexist attitudes like this are why men get taken to the cleaners in family courts all over the world. This same woman probably bitches about men not helping with diaper changes and parenting duties. If you have a kid, never ever let someone do this to you, get involved and refuse to let sexist twats keep you from being part of your kids life. Take the opportunity and raise your kid right, teach them the things you wished you learned and have fun with the.

Fathers are supposed to be more involved in their kids lives than providing a paycheck. Take responsibility, stand up to sexism, raise your kids as they deserve better. If doing the right thing doesn't inspire you just remember that if you don't you'll be taken to the cleaners if you ever go to Family Court.

/Rant off

The disparity is no reason for feminists to cheer

[LihTox]

When we give women more time off than men to take care of an infant (and that's what parental leave is mostly for), we are strengthening the notion that the mother is the better person to take care of a baby. And what about women who don't *want* to take so much time off from work? My wife is a researcher running her own lab, and needed to get back to work as soon as she could after our son was born. Fortunately, I was working part-time and I could be a stay-at-home dad (with some babysitting assistance). But suppose I had a similar job to hers, and the University said "OK, she can have 12 weeks off but you can only have 6", isn't that putting added pressure on her to take the leave, regardless of the relative importance of our positions? Isn't it telling her "We can spare you a lot more easily than we can spare your husband, because he's a man"?

So I see no reason for women to cheer this disparity.