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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 2, 2013 @07:35AM from the what-about-occasional-babysitters? dept.

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."

123 of 832 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Equal rights by BitZtream · 2013-05-02 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
1. Re:Equal rights by BitZtream · 2013-05-02 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I should add, its ironic that ultraliberal California doesn't consider this illegal, but Ruby Red North Carolina prevents such discrimination.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
2. Re:Equal rights by HaZardman27 · 2013-05-02 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
3. Re:Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Childfree people are being discriminated against because they get no leave. I should be able to take leave to take care of my cat.
4. Re:Equal rights by jeffmeden · 2013-05-02 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
5. Re:Equal rights by jittles · 2013-05-02 07:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually in California fathers are granted the 12 weeks required under the FMLA at the federal level. So while it may be legal to give mom's 16 weeks (though I am not sure it is), dads are required by law to get at least 12 weeks.
6. Re:Equal rights by hedwards · 2013-05-02 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:Equal rights by MozeeToby · 2013-05-02 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Equal rights by toastar · 2013-05-02 07:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  unpaid
9. Re:Equal rights by s0nicfreak · 2013-05-02 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Then they are discriminating against people that can not give birth. That includes men, some women, and some people in between.
10. Re:Equal rights by Kongming · 2013-05-02 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.
  Not everyone agrees with you.
  
  --
  (no sig)
11. Re:Equal rights by Enry · 2013-05-02 07:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Last I saw, FMLA says unpaid leave. Yahoo(!) is offering paid leave. Dads can still take 12 weeks, but the last 4 have to come out of vacation or unpaid time.
12. Re:Equal rights by 0100010001010011 · 2013-05-02 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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
13. Re:Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 07:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Here in Brazil, where we've had 10 years of socialist government (seriously, the American say Obama is a leftist, but here he'd be considered extreme right wing, in the same level as the remains of the military government), women get 120 days off and men get 5 days, both with full payment, granted as constitutional rights. The first reference in English I found was Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
14. Re:Equal rights by dawnkawamotodice · 2013-05-02 07:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Hi Jittles, In my submission, I left out the word *paid* maternity, *paid* paternity leave. You're dead on regarding FMLA's 12 week requirement, but it does not require it be paid.
15. Re:Equal rights by CanHasDIY · 2013-05-02 08:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Men are usually more violent.
  Watch it, or I'll kick your ass!
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
16. Re:Equal rights by hedwards · 2013-05-02 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Except that the law isn't supposed to work like that. The US constitution does not permit women to get special rights that are not available to men. Which is why things like title IX don't specify a sex, they specify that both sexes are required to get equal opportunity to resources covered under the title. And that can mean extra resources for men, even though it usually works out benefiting women.
  What's more the bulk of the maternity leave has nothing to do with pregnancy, and everything to do with bonding with the newborn. It's questionable as to why we're granting women all that time off and then bitching about how men don't spend as much time with their children. Well, no shit, we don't give them the same sort of break in terms of availability to bond with their own children.
17. Re:Equal rights by Frosty+Piss · 2013-05-02 08:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You are wrong. It is a life event, not a yearly occurrence...
  Clearly you are not Catholic, Mormon, or from the Bible Belt.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
18. Re:Equal rights by SirGarlon · 2013-05-02 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
19. Re:Equal rights by Kongming · 2013-05-02 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  You are correct, and this pattern continues to make it difficult for women to achieve parity in the most powerful positions; it is assumed that women of childbearing age will take more time off. In fact, countries that offer more maternal leave and more paid maternal leave have, on average, greater employment disparities in advanced positions.
  
  I have heard of one interesting idea. Certain countries, such as Sweden, have programs in which a certain amount of parental leave is guaranteed, but at least some portion of it must be taken by each parent. I understand that it has had some success in decreasing the disparity in terms of leave time taken, although there is certainly still an imbalance.
  
  --
  (no sig)
20. Re:Equal rights by interkin3tic · 2013-05-02 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
21. Re:Equal rights by obarthelemy · 2013-05-02 08:09 · Score: 2
  
  They might require more milk though ?
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
22. Re: Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 08:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Meanwhile in sweden: 280 days per child. Of those, at least two months must be used by the father. All days are payed.
23. Re:Equal rights by Rich0 · 2013-05-02 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  Well, lots of people do work hourly jobs where this isn't an issue. But, yes, I agree with everything you said in the professional world.
  At my workplace the guy who gets FMLA leave for a month and the guy who slips out to go golfing 10 hours per week for four months basically get treated the same by the system. The same is true of somebody who gets sick/disabled, or who ends up sequestered on a jury for a year. They'll never fire you while you're on leave (especially a legally-guaranteed leave). However, they won't give you a big bonus the next year for sure, and when the next re-org/layoff comes you will be near the bottom of the ranking. When they fire you it won't be "for serving jury duty" - it will be because "we just don't need so many people."
  At some level this is actually a good thing, because it gives employees more flexibility - my boss really could care less if I take vacation, and so on. The bad thing is that basically it leads to people never REALLY going on vacation - they end up working in spurts or killing themselves to get back. Forced ranking often also lead to situations where the person who just went through a divorce ends up getting fired for something that likely has no bearing whatsoever on their future productivity.
24. Re:Equal rights by BitZtream · 2013-05-02 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, except we don't give them more time off because something came out of them. Medically, its a minor event. You're ready to just about anything you could do before hand (physically) in a couple days. About the only thing you can't do immediately is make another baby. C-sections are different as they have to cut you, but those are not the norm.
  If you reduce it to 'recovery from the process of passing a child' then you reduce the time two no more than 1 week, unless the women works in a baby mill, in which case, I think its 6 weeks.
  The time off is given for the 'family' not for medical recovery. The time off is so mom can be with her child, not because she is recovering. She isn't even taking care of the child for the most part during her 'recovery' period, its only after that when she starts doing her job.
  I'm fairly certain you don't have any experience with women giving birth. We did it for hundreds of thousands of years when taking a break for more than a few hours meant something big and mean ate you alive. They even did it without hospitals ... or someone to tell them they were working too hard!
  I want to spend that time with my child too.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
25. Re:Equal rights by interkin3tic · 2013-05-02 08:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  When you say "ultraliberal" you're thinking of very specific, small places within California. Like Berkley, Hollywood, and San Francisco. And even then, you're only thinking of the most outspoken residents. The OC is very conservative by national standards. The state legislature has plenty of conservatives in it, some of whom subscribe to the "starve the beast" theory, whereby you solve the budgetary problems by refusing to raise taxes without actually cutting spending.
  
  (Also, side note, some residents of the OC evidently hate it when you call it the OC, so call the OC "the OC" whenever you get the chance.)
26. Re:Equal rights by jeffmeden · 2013-05-02 08:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Except that the law isn't supposed to work like that. The US constitution does not permit women to get special rights that are not available to men. Which is why things like title IX don't specify a sex, they specify that both sexes are required to get equal opportunity to resources covered under the title. And that can mean extra resources for men, even though it usually works out benefiting women.
  What's more the bulk of the maternity leave has nothing to do with pregnancy, and everything to do with bonding with the newborn. It's questionable as to why we're granting women all that time off and then bitching about how men don't spend as much time with their children. Well, no shit, we don't give them the same sort of break in terms of availability to bond with their own children.
  As many others pointed out, FMLA covers both equally and supersedes this law (with unpaid leave). You can think of it as them giving a bonus to women that isn't available to men. but based on decades of salary data, men were getting bonuses all along and no one bothered to cite the constitution in protest.
  In a perfect world anyone with a newborn would get paid leave, but most companies give 0 weeks of leave to fathers and 6 to 8 weeks to mothers (often at a discount) so why are we getting on Yahoo's case for going above and beyond 99% of the employers in the US, with the same difference?
27. Re: Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 08:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  tax rate of 51.1%
28. Re:Equal rights by thehickcoder · 2013-05-02 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I like the way my company handles this. One partner (primary caregiver) gets 12 weeks. The other (secondary caregiver) gets 2 weeks. It addresses all the discrimination/same-sex issues, while also handling the "someone who just had another person come out of them should get more time off" common sense. If the mother works, the father is automatically considered to be the secondary caregiver unless he can provide documentation from her employer saying she only was able to get 2 weeks off. I know fathers who have been able to take 12 weeks off because their wife's employer only allowed 2 weeks of maternity leave.
29. Re:Equal rights by ewibble · 2013-05-02 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
30. Re:Equal rights by tiberus · 2013-05-02 08:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Don't forget that with FMLA only applies to certain companies (50 or more employees in the area), may not apply to you (upper 10% of earners and your leave would hurt the company), you and your wife work at the same place (then you have to split your 12 weeks). Pretty sure most companies require you to burn your paid time first, so it may be unpaid leave.
  While time to bond would have been great, I don't have any real heart-burn about Yahoo's benefit offering for a few reasons. 1) I do believe that on average, women are likely to need more time off to recoup from giving birth, especially as it seems troubled pregnancies are becoming more common. 2) I'm much more bent over how a female dominated field like education (birth - high school) has zippo paid parental leave benefits. Considering the current overall state of such benefits Yahoo deserves applause, albeit possibly with a raised eyebrow.
  Sheesh folks are getting bent over Yahoo increasing an already generous benefit for women but, not for men. How about we cut them a huss until everyone else in the country has the paltry 8 weeks of leave dads at Yahoo will get, then we can paint signs, hop on a buss, protest outside their offices, sign "Give Peace a Chance" and boycott their services...
31. Re: Equal rights by Troed · 2013-05-02 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  480, not 280.
  
  --
  it's in my head
32. Re:Equal rights by CastrTroy · 2013-05-02 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  But it's a real problem for employers. Unless you're hiring for a factory where employees are easily trained and replaced, there's really no way you can replace an employee while they're off on parental leave. Let's say a lead developer took 6 months off. You probably need to hire the new person a good 2 months before the other person leaves just so they can catch up. And then it probably takes another month or so after the original employee gets back to get them caught back up. The other option is to just take the work of the person who leaves, and split it between the remaining employees, and don't hire anybody to fill the seat. This means everyone else has to either work more so the same amount of work can be done, or they just have to get less work done. Either way, if the person taking the time off is a high level employee, you're still going to be stuck having them work a little bit during their parental leave, if not just answering the phone a couple times a week to fill in missing information.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
33. Re:Equal rights by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-05-02 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
34. Re:Equal rights by DdJ · 2013-05-02 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  I'm guessing that any men who actually managed to give birth themselves would be able to successfully argue for more leave.
  (The less tongue-in-cheek way to express the same thought is: if the parents are a married lesbian couple, what does their policy say about the amount of time permitted? If a female parent who didn't carry the baby is entitled to more leave than a man under the same circumstances, then yes, there's no argument by which the policy isn't discriminatory. But otherwise, there may be.)
35. Re:Equal rights by Reverand+Dave · 2013-05-02 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
36. Re: Equal rights by pspahn · 2013-05-02 08:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Sounds like Sweden would be a great place to plop out some triplets.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
37. Re:Equal rights by JMJimmy · 2013-05-02 08:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It shouldn't be rare. Ontario people get 1 year to split between the parents as they wish - that way if the father is the primary caregiver he can take the most time. I know my aunt did that, she was the primary breadwinner (lawyer) so she chose to go back to work after 6 weeks and her husband stayed home and raised their daughters.
  What happens if, heaven forbid, the mother dies in childbirth - do you really think 8 weeks is enough for a father/husband to have off to both raise a child and mourn?
38. Re:Equal rights by deoxyribonucleose · 2013-05-02 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  You believe maternity/paternity leave is solely about medical recovery? And not, say, about bonding with and nurturing the child? Because that's the only way this would not be discrimination.
  Fun side note: here in Sweden (yeah, right, we're all borderline commies here, so you can automatically discount anything we do, and we do pay taxes through the nose and several other orifices), not only do both parents have the right to paid leave, to the tune of 96 weeks, but four weeks are dedicated to each parent, lest they forgo it entirely. Our honest-to-goodness socialists here are campaigning to enforce parents' splitting them down the middle... and have the temerity to claim this would be an 'individualized' leave.
39. Re:Equal rights by pspahn · 2013-05-02 08:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  8 weeks is a long time to recover from child birth.
  Not really. I'm sure Justin Beiber's mother is still on the mend.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
40. Re:Equal rights by deoxyribonucleose · 2013-05-02 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  And absolutely no scientific studies, to my knowledge.
41. Re:Equal rights by jythie · 2013-05-02 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the leave is often sited as one of the justifications for why it is naturally for women to be paid less, after all men do not have those big gaps and thus it is only 'natural' that they would advance more and be more valuable to the company.
42. Re:Equal rights by geminidomino · 2013-05-02 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  It's not about fairness, it's about reality. The mom needs more time as she is recovering from the labor. Plus she is often the primary care taker and can get exhausted easily.
  This canard keeps getting brought up, and it just makes no sense.
  Momma has to "recover from labor" and "can get exhausted easily?" Well, it's a damn shame that pop isn't treated like a parent instead of an ambulatory ATM, then, or he could be there to do some of those changings and feedings so that mom could rest and recover, isn't it?
43. Re:Equal rights by Hobadee · 2013-05-02 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  Uhm, as the husband of a woman who just gave birth, I can attest that women do indeed need more than a week, and giving birth was NOT the equivalent of a day surgery.
  
  --
  ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
44. Re: Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 08:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  government usefulness rate of 2000%
45. Re:Equal rights by hedwards · 2013-05-02 08:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You can't have it both ways. If women want to complain about being underpaid, then they're going to have to accept the cut to benefits like this that it's going to take. They're also going to have to be willing to make the other sacrifices that men make in order to get those bonuses.
  Also, women should stop complaining about men being less involved in the lives of their children, when men are being provided with fewer opportunities to do so.
  Just because they're going above and beyond 99% of the other employers, doesn't make the practice of granting women additional leave any less sexist. It just means that they aren't as bad as the other companies are.
46. Re:Equal rights by TheCycoONE · 2013-05-02 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  Ug. Your lead developer could die or quit at anytime, they also get vacation time even in the US. Redundancy is critical to running a business, and if you have too narrow of margins to support it then your business deserves to go under.
47. Re:Equal rights by SuperAlgae · 2013-05-02 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
48. Re:Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 08:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Yeah guys, Conservatives are super easy to find in California - you just have to go where nobody lives."
49. Re:Equal rights by hondo77 · 2013-05-02 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, really?
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
50. Re:Equal rights by viperidaenz · 2013-05-02 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  Sometimes the father is not known or wants nothing to do with the mother. Are they still forced to take parental leave? Is the mother penalised if they don't?
51. Re:Equal rights by Rene+S.+Hollan · 2013-05-02 09:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, men don't have a choice if contraception or sterilization fails. Women can always chose to abort. Contracts to abort in event of contraceptive or sterilization failure are unenforceable at law.
  Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if their semen is stolen out of a used condom. It has happened, and the argument is that the child's needs for support outweigh the father's rights to not be made a slave.
  Men can become fathers, with legal child support obligations, if they donate semen for artificial insemination, and later the child goes on welfare, with exceptions existing only if the sperm donation was done under state guidelines.
  
  --
  In Liberty, Rene
52. Re:Equal rights by viperidaenz · 2013-05-02 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
53. Re:Equal rights by demachina · 2013-05-02 09:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  People should be given all the leave they want to deal with newborn children. They ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE PAID by their employer while they are doing it unless they are using sick leave and vacation time like everyone else. Paid leave for a life styule choice is wrong at every level. Its especially unfair to coworkers who, for whatever reason, are not having childern. Its also unfair to shareholders and customers.
  This strikes me as a case of CEO, who just had a child, whose perspective has been warped in favor of people who make the same choices she is making.
  If you make paid leave a mandate at a governmental level you are nearly insuring employers will balk at hiring employees who are likely to have children and become a ball and chain on the payroll, taking off huge amounts of time with pay and requiring him to also pay a temp to cover for them.
  
  --
  @de_machina
54. Re:Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 09:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
55. Re:Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 09:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
56. Re:Equal rights by phoenix_rizzen · 2013-05-02 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  You never heard of a breast pump and bottles?
  We breast fed our daughter for over 6 months, yet I (the father) did most of the feedings, especially the night-time ones.
  How? My wife would pump throughout the day, we'd store it up in the fridge, and I'd use it as needed.
  Not really rocket-science here folks.
57. Re:Equal rights by phoenix_rizzen · 2013-05-02 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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. :)
58. Re:Equal rights by Belial6 · 2013-05-02 09:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
59. Re: Equal rights by tempest69 · 2013-05-02 09:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
60. Re: Equal rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 09:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
61. Re: Equal rights by scot4875 · 2013-05-02 09:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
62. Re:Equal rights by RoknrolZombie · 2013-05-02 09:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Is this a surprise to anyone? Most states have most of their Democrats near their city centers, and most states have Republicans on the outskirts. I think the problem with drawing these lines has more to do with the arbitrary manner that they're applied - if you think that homeless people should have assistance, for example, that automatically pegs you as a Democrat...but the reality is that maybe I'm sick of tripping over homeless people living on the street? Rural areas don't have those sorts of problems, so they tend to not show up on an individuals' radar. Likewise, folks in more rural areas might have certain views about protecting business - but that's largely because the businesses in their areas are SMALL businesses that, if they were to close, would really hurt the community.
  
  Don't get me wrong - this is just one perception that has many more variables than I'm willing (or able) to enumerate here, but it seems that the party lines (at least from an individual citizens' perspective) seems to largely depend on the problems that those individuals deal with every single day. People in cities deal with different problems than people in rural areas...it's not a big surprise to me that their priorities are different.
63. Re:Equal rights by meustrus · 2013-05-02 09:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  hedwards, you have no idea what you're talking about.
  
  1. Mothers normally need at least 2 weeks to physically recover from having a ~5" diameter baby pass through a normally ~1.5" tube, to say nothing of the cervix which before childbirth is normally dilated less that 1/8" and the sore abdominal muscles that forced that baby through. In case of Caesarean section, it can take months for the mother to physically recover.
  2. Babies need attention to properly develop. A mother's (or father's) love is vital to a child's emotional and psychological development. The lack of such attention can lead to serious and permanent relationship deficiencies.
  3. Newborns need to eat every 2 hours, even through the night, until they are anywhere between 3 and 9 months old. The best food for them is breastmilk, providing superior immune support and brain development to formula. In order for the mother to maintain adequate milk production she must either feed the newborn or pump out the milk every 2 hours. Otherwise she will be painfully swollen and will produce less milk thereafter.
  4. Even after the mother has physically recovered, she still has a newborn baby that needs constant attention. You can't get daycare for newborns unless you have at least middle class income. Even then there is a severe shortage of care providers because in most areas there are laws severely limiting the number of infants a single daycare worker is allowed to watch at any one time. This is for good reason because infants really need constant attention not divided between a dozen babies in order to develop normally.
  5. Remembering that newborns eat every 2 hours, parents of newborns get very little sleep. Assuming you could get daycare for your newborn, both parents will still be sleep deprived for months unless they are rich enough to afford a nanny.
  6. Finally, despite all of this difficulty, parents want to be with their new baby. Mom didn't live through 9 months of random nausea, general fatigue, severe mood swings, and discomfort due to carrying an extra 20 lbs. between her legs, followed by the most painful experience the most women will ever have to live through (and far more painful than anything most men will experience), just to drop the baby off with somebody else and go back to work. Parenting is a special joy and will be the single most gratifying experience in the lives of most people. All people have a natural right to pursue happiness. It is immoral to even suggest that staying home with your children for even the few months when they are most vulnerable is an unnecessary indulgence. Any company not willing to give you that is devouring your soul and will leave you spent, poor, and deprived of any source of true happiness.
  P.S. Slashdot, if I use an <ol> it's because I want my list items to have numbers in front of them without having to add them myself. Otherwise I'd just use <ul> or a series of <p>s.
  --
  I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
64. Re:Equal rights by Bigby · 2013-05-02 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  Or politics around any group of people that have been wronged in the distant past. It is an attempt at a form of reparations. Like that will help...
65. Re:Equal rights by flimflammer · 2013-05-02 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  Going above and beyond 99% of employers in the US doesn't make what they're doing any less sexist. In fact, it is less sexist to give no paid leave at all to either parent than giving the mother twice as much paid leave as the father, especially when you consider that adoptive parents get these same benefits, so no one can staple on "women need time to recover!"
66. Re:Equal rights by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-05-02 10:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
67. Re:Equal rights by Hatta · 2013-05-02 10:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
68. Re:Equal rights by Belial6 · 2013-05-02 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly. Planning for a skeleton crew to be the norm means you already failed.
69. Re: Equal rights by msauve · 2013-05-02 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "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.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
70. Re:Equal rights by kenh · 2013-05-02 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  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%.
  --
  Ken
71. Re:Equal rights by Cederic · 2013-05-02 10:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No, fathers aren't the same as mothers. Men aren't the same as women. So why the fuck do women demand equal pay?
  Sorry, but it's all or nothing. Equal rights or no equal rights. Don't go demanding unequal rights that benefit one population over another.
  Shit, next you'll be complaining that men don't take on their fair share of caring for and raising the children.
72. Re:Equal rights by TapeCutter · 2013-05-02 12:02 · Score: 2
  
  Just for the record, do you actually have any kids? - My grandfather instincts say you don't, or perhaps you just incredibly self-centered and lack empathy for the mother of your children?
  
  Men and women are not equal in the baby thing, for an obvious example, men have no difficulty walking during the last month or two of pregnancy. Nature discriminates against the woman in the baby thing, men simply don't need several months of paid leave to watch their new born eat, shit and sleep (they do little else for the first 3 months). Maternity leave attempts to correct nature's discriminatory ways by equalizing the financial/career repercussions of having a child, ie: the woman does not lose her job to a man simply because she is bearing a child. You seem to think it is a holiday that women get and men don't, if that's the case then you have missed the entire rational for maternity leave. >quote>spending time with our children vs. actually feeding our children
  Trivia: In traditional hunter/gatherer societies, women gather the bulk of the food for the tribe, usually around the 80% mark.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
73. Re:Equal rights by atriusofbricia · 2013-05-02 12:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  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.
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
74. Re: Equal rights by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-05-02 14:31 · Score: 2
  
  Try telling that to Swedish women. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=sw&v=31 Total fertility rate = 1.67 children per woman. Now you understand why the paid leave benefit for having a child is so extreme in Sweden.
75. Re: Equal rights by Evtim · 2013-05-02 16:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes. This is also included in the 2000% efficiency.
  Home schooling is a nice option but it's being used primarily to keep kids dumb, by avoiding "evil science". On the other hand, there are the occasional cases where the kid is bright and bored in class and if mom and dad are PhD',s or least as bright as Feynman's father, they could give better schooling. However, considering the frequency of the above two cases, and the many extra requirements for the successful application of the second (educated, willing parents with free time - is there such a beast in the world) for the good of society, better not have home schooling. Pity that the minority suffers due to the stupidity of the majority but that seems to be the way of the world.
  The long maternity leave is....too short. The best I've seen is my country during the totalitarian years - 2 years full pay with reintegration program (if needed). My mom starter working at 19, after secondary school. Gave birth at 27, stayed with me for the full 2 years, did not need reintegration program and then went to become HRM in a company of 4000 people and for most of our lives brought home more money than dad, who was a construction worker.
  I was laughing my head off (because the communist got at least one thing very right; there were precious few such achievements like education), after hearing from the Zeitgeist guys (the latest movie) that pregnancy is in fact 3 years, of which 2 years outside the womb, since we could not have the full development inside - the head would be too big to pass. So the first two years of a child's life are enormously important. Many a study have shown that the most crucial aspect is the simple touch between parents and kids, the physical and emotional presence of parents in child's life. Oh, but mom and dad cannot hold you, honey, they have to work, otherwise the economy will collapse! You know, today, when we have so much power and knowledge, when our civilization does not know what to do with unemployment, when we have people who could buy a country, we still cannot somehow manage to ensure healthy environment to raise our kids. Can you put monetary value to properly raised kid? How much money would be SAVED by society by providing good conditions for raising kids? Kids that would be healthier, happier, more productive, more creative and more humane (less crime, then).
  Why it is that every time the moron politicians of the world reach for the cutting budget scissors they cut education, healthcare and social programs? Exactly the most important things needed for healthy society and the proper rearing of kids. Why is nobody thinking rationally and working a good compromise based on science?
76. Re:Equal rights by Maxo-Texas · 2013-05-02 16:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
77. Re:Equal rights by TranquilVoid · 2013-05-02 17:40 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but in the same way that requiring disabled parking discriminates against the able-bodied. The rules of society tend to be about managing the welfare of the whole, not adhering to individualistic philosophy (taken as a whole the philosphies evinced by our behaviour is a contradictory mess).
78. Re: Equal rights by jabuzz · 2013-05-02 20:58 · Score: 2
  
  A quick check shows that Swedish oil production for 2011 was less than 5000 barrels a day. I suspect that you are confusing Sweden with Norway, who do have large amounts of North Sea oil and gas.
79. Re:Equal rights by j-beda · 2013-05-03 00:07 · Score: 2
  
  You are wrong. It is a life event, not a yearly occurrence...
  Clearly you are not Catholic, Mormon, or from the Bible Belt.
  While members of those groups may have more children then others, none of them come close to yearly.
  Poland is about 90% Catholic. The Polish birth rate is 1.4 births per child. (Compared to 2.1 for the USA - wow that is high for a developed country!) Clearly "Catholics" are not universally churning them out.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
80. Re:Equal rights by cayenne8 · 2013-05-03 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  And why would guys need off for a new born?
  Hell, I'd think most new fathers would welcome the time OUT of the home and away from all the crying and diapers for a bit.
  It isn't like they need to be there to breast feed, etc.....they did their business when they fucked.
  After that, about all they are there for is $$ support till the kid gets old enough to start talking and interracting, and then fathering begins really.
  Between coming and then....men are largely useless and unneeded for newborns. Women are built for that early stuff.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"...one smells less" by bradgoodman · 2013-05-02 07:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Which one is that?
1. Re:"...one smells less" by stewsters · 2013-05-02 07:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  At Yahoo, a company with legacy code dating back to 1995, I think you can guess.
2. Re:"...one smells less" by HaZardman27 · 2013-05-02 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  One smells worse in the short term, but the other will keep stinking for years.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
3. Re:"...one smells less" by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2013-05-02 07:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yup. I'll take a huge diaperfull of steamy pungent poo over server-side Perl every time.
4. Re:"...one smells less" by gman003 · 2013-05-02 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  Writing Perl is easy. It's reading it that's the hard part.
5. Re:"...one smells less" by Hobadee · 2013-05-02 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  Perl or Bash? Make up your mind!
  
  --
  ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
Sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 07:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Sexist by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-05-02 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  "Goodbye baby Banting; you'll soon need decanting."
Sperm Donors, That's All We Are by CanHasDIY · 2013-05-02 07:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. Re:Sperm Donors, That's All We Are by Jason+Levine · 2013-05-02 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
2. Re:Sperm Donors, That's All We Are by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 10:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
Saskatchewan by Nos. · 2013-05-02 07:40 · Score: 2

Here, the mother gets 17 weeks, and there are an additional 35 weeks that can be split up however the parents decide. There are some requirements (you have to be eligible for Employment Insurance - worked a minimum number of hours, your income must be significantly reduced, etc.).
Sweden, 1 year by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 07:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Sweden has 1 year paid parental leave, covered by the government, with a bonus if split close to even between parents.
Move here. It is nice. Well... except for the moose.
1. Re:Sweden, 1 year by Stargoat · 2013-05-02 07:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A MÃÃse once bit my sister ...
  
  --
  Hoist Number One and Number Six.
2. Re:Sweden, 1 year by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 07:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Those responsible for the maternity leave discrimination have been sacked.
3. Re:Sweden, 1 year by jonathanjespersen · 2013-05-02 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
What about lesbian couples? by Nadaka · 2013-05-02 07:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Do they each get 16 weeks?
1. Re:What about lesbian couples? by Swampash · 2013-05-02 07:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The one who squeezes the watermelon-sized thing out through the lemon-sized opening gets more leave than the one who doesn't.
2. Re:What about lesbian couples? by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-05-02 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  Which would be neither, unless one of the lesbians is an elephant.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
How men could use this by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2013-05-02 07:41 · Score: 3, Funny

1) To wife: "If all goes well I'm taking a week off after the baby comes."
2) To work: "I'm taking all eight weeks off."
3) Enjoy seven weeks of 8-5 freedom.
Why shouldn't dad's get equal treatment? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 07:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 07:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 year by Literaphile · 2013-05-02 07:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Nothing motivates you better to go back to the grind of corporate work than 7 years of shitty diapers. I love my kids, but 7 years of diapers was enough. Much happier with a regular paycheck and a nanny.
Maybe your problem was leaving your kids in diapers until they were 7?
Real motivation here by bradgoodman · 2013-05-02 07:48 · Score: 2

Hmmm...A head scratchier
Let's try to figure this one out...
The new CEO - a woman who just gave birth (or is about to?) - and has publicly cracked-down on people putting time in at home comes up with a Maternity/Paternity policy....
1. Re:Real motivation here by Jason+Levine · 2013-05-02 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  She already had her child back in September. This led to a big controversy. She had her baby, worked from home for awhile, and then (in February) decided that no other employee should be allowed to work from home.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Canada!~ by Literaphile · 2013-05-02 07:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Happy to live in Canada where both men and women can take 35 weeks of parental leave, covered by employment insurance.
1. Re:Canada!~ by p43751 · 2013-05-02 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I see Your Canada and raise You a Norway.
  47 weeks(100% pay) or 57 Weeks(80% pay).
  Dad HAS to use 12 of the weeks or they will be lost.
  Apart from a small part around birth, all weeks can be used by either mum or dad.
Re:As a guy that was a stay at home dad for 7 year by avandesande · 2013-05-02 07:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Gross! You're supposed to change them at least once a day, aren't you?

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Give me the diapers... by macbeth66 · 2013-05-02 07:52 · Score: 2

After the past week of looking at some really stinky code around here, I would cherish diapers.
a discrimination case waiting to happen by KernelMuncher · 2013-05-02 07:53 · Score: 4, Informative

American federal law prohibits policies that discriminate based on sex. By giving different leave times according to the person's gender, Yahoo is in violation. They could be subject to EEOC fines or even sued in civil court by any aggrieved parties (meaning the dads).
1. Re:a discrimination case waiting to happen by faedle · 2013-05-02 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  Except the policy doesn't technically discriminate on the basis of sex. A woman that does not bear a child only gets 8 weeks, just like a man. The additional 8 weeks is for recovery from pregnancy.
  Now, it would be interesting if a FtoM (that is, somebody who was born female but happens to be considered "male" by society) happened to get pregnant if they would get 16 weeks. My guess is that they would, precisely because of this distinction.
Missing the point... by grmoc · 2013-05-02 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Diapers Smell Less? by Jason+Levine · 2013-05-02 08:01 · Score: 2

Would that be the diapers that smell less? Diapers don't typically stink until the baby starts eating solid food. This happens at around the 4 to 6 month mark. So if dads got 16 weeks of paternity time, they would head back to work just when the diapers began to smell.
Yes, I'm a dad (two wonderful boys) and yes I changed my fair share of diapers when they were younger. (However, I'm glad that we're out of the diaper phase for good now!) Unfortunately, I didn't even get 8 weeks of paternity leave. I took a week off when my first son was born (out of my own vacation days) and then took a couple of days off when my second was born. I would have loved to have spent 8 weeks pampering my wife and helping her with our newborn.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I'm not sexist... by FuzzNugget · 2013-05-02 08:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

...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? by onyxruby · 2013-05-02 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
1. Re:What the hell happened? by neonKow · 2013-05-02 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  I feel like everyone is so focused on the "inequality" part of the article that no one is paying attention to "holy crap, 8 weeks is a lot of time off." Seriously? 8 weeks of paid leave to spend with your kid? I don't think that constitutes a policy that "discourages dads from participating in their kids lives." At most, there's a bit of grumbling about how it's unfair that your coworker in the next office got 8 more weeks paid off than you did, but then your wife will smack you in the head, remind you that you didn't have to carry a baby around for 9 months including many weeks where a lot of basic movements we take for granted become very difficult, and then force a small person through our genitals. And it's not like you can't take additional unpaid time off, no questions asked.
  I've seen people who've worked with a company for years still have to take vacation time to make up for a very meager paternity leave, so even if you have a point to make about sexism, which I may or may not agree with, you are simply moaning and groaning about a completely unrelated topic if you're complaining that 8 weeks of paid paternity leave somehow is inhibiting the fathers from being parents or that this somehow reduces fathers to only a source of income.
  And please, even when making a valid point that we should start treating dads as equal parents as moms, don't ignore the huge difference in physical changes that happens to a woman giving birth that do not happen her husband.
Re:Have any of you actually thought why? by englishknnigits · 2013-05-02 08:47 · Score: 2

You are missing the heart of the matter. The real issue is that preferential treatment towards men is considered wrong regardless of any considerations while preferential treatment towards women is okay as long as it has a justification. Charging men less than women for haircuts because, by and large, their haircuts take less time and attention is unlawful discrimination even though it has a perfectly reasonable justification. Your explanation does make sense and could be seen as a reasonable justification. However, if we allow discrimination in favor of women in some cases we should also allow it for men in some cases as well. Femnatzis battle to take away all discriminatory advantages held by men while retaining all discriminatory advantages held by women.
Re:Want time off to spend with your child? by wisnoskij · 2013-05-02 09:28 · Score: 2

Promoting child birth is considered good for the community?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:Yes but see by Americano · 2013-05-02 09:35 · Score: 2

And yet it seems that numerous such studies have been conducted, and concluded the precise opposite of what you just asserted:

Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1979 and 1995 and controlling for education, experience, personal characteristics, parental status, city and region, occupation, industry, government employment, and part-time status, Yale University economics professor Joseph G. Altonji and the United States Secretary of Commerce Rebecca M. Blank found that only about 27% of the gender wage gap in each year is explained by differences in such characteristics.
[...]
Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and "work patterns." The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns," including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men during the entire period 1983 to 2000. In a subsequent study, GAO found that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor "should better monitor their performance in enforcing anti-discrimination laws."
More examples abound, with references and sources, at that link. Perhaps you have some counterexamples to offer which show that all of the disparity can be adequately explained by non-discriminatory factors? Other than blanket assertions, I mean?
The disparity is no reason for feminists to cheer by LihTox · 2013-05-02 15:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Money by DarthVain · 2013-05-03 01:50 · Score: 2

Even throwing out the whole moral or ethical side of things, from a purely corporate perspective it makes no sense.
A perfect example, is that a few years ago I was working on a project that included a particular DB dev. Part way though the project she leaves on parental leave. Another is assigned. She has to start pretty much from scratch and be brought up to speed. A few months later, she goes on leave. Another is assigned. Repeat. The last one managed to stick around until completion. But the project was very delayed by this. For myself I was frustrated and couldn't believe the manager assigned several pregnant women to my project in a row. Then again, managers are likely not supposed to discriminate against that. Fine. They have those rights and I would never argue against that, however from a purely empirical perspective of getting work done for a project... sorry it happens. Women get pregnant and leave the workplace/projects. Even allowing for men to do the same, it is more often and longer.
I look around me and most women I have worked with have had at least one or two at this point over a period of the last few years. This means you are supporting a work force of nearly half that are not actually "working". Meanwhile I have been here the whole time working for years more than many of them. Then when you think about pay level and seniority, etc... how is that fair to men? Anyway that is not to say that I won't participate in having a child or taking time off, however I haven't thus far...
Anyway it is a double standard. Actually there was an author that recently was on the CBC promoting his new book, and he actually had the balls to point out that statistically women actually shouldn't make as much money as men simply because they do not work as much due to pregnancy. If you are trying to be totally fair, and not getting into the morality argument etc...
1. Re:Money by DarthVain · 2013-05-03 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  No. I am saying that society shouldn't get concerned at the idea of a man who doesn't take paternal leave being compensated better because of it.