Marissa Mayer Bans WAH

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Marissa Mayer Bans WAH
350
Sun, 02-24-2013 - 1:08pm

The youngest female Fortune 500 CEO ~ Yahoo's Marissa Mayer ~ banned WAH for all employees, including full-time customer service reps, those who WAH just 1 or 2 days/week, even those hired on the condition they WAH.

<<"Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home," says the memo from HR director Jackie Rees..."We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.>>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/marissa-mayer-work-from-home-yahoo-rule_b_2750256.html

Apparently the fact that all of the "tools" can be at home, accessing the main offices remotely, is not enough.

Wouldn't we expect a new mom especially to "champion" combining work and family?  Some WAH employees say they get more done at home, due to a shorter "commute", fewer interuptions at the watercooler and cubicle.  For those who WAH part-time or f-t, are you as/more productive at home as in an office?  Will this backfire as the top talent can WAH for Yahoo and other companies? 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 4:13pm

thardy2001 wrote:
<p><blockquote class="quote-msg quote-nest-1 odd"><div class="quote-author"><em class="placeholder">pumpkinangel</em> wrote:</div>   Telling them that they can't have it all is giving them a glass ceiling.  &lt;/p&gt;</blockquote></p><p>No.  No, it really isn't.</p>

In this one instance, I agree with Thardy, but probably for different reasons. Feminism has been misrepresented by the "having it all" formulation. It sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism – as opposed to persistent gender inequity – that’s to blame. Feminism gave my generation more choices, and there can be upside and downsides to all choices, but at least we can make choices that were unavailable to prior generations of women.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-20-2013
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 4:16pm

jamblessedthree wrote:
Exactly, The failure is in the population that refuses to acknowledge sacrifice, compromise and give and take to reach a common goal, It's the I want it all and now mentality that I will never undersgtand, And the justifying that it's ok to raise our children (if mostly girls in the context of this thread) this way is incredible! What a selfish idealogy.

Oh yes, how utterly selfish for someone with ovaries to expect to receive equal pay (to someone with a penis) for equal work. That is such a totally, selfish ideology (idealogy is not actually a word). 

Do you get how ridiculous you two sound?

Kitty, PKA & I have been clear that there is no universal "having it all." Marissa Mayer may have her definition of it, I have my definition of it, Kitty has hers--there isn't a universal definition as it is defined differently by everyone. Not one of us has gone all Veruca Salt like you're claiming. I believe PKA specifically pointed out that it would require a great deal of hard work and sacrifice, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

I really think it is quite selfish to tell your kids they can't achieve something just because you couldn't manage to do it yourself. I respect the fact that my kids are individuals and may want totally different things out of life than I do. Clearly feel differently about your own family. Like you're so fond of saying...different strokes.

On Wednesdays we wear pink.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 4:54pm

thardy2001 wrote:
<p><blockquote class="quote-msg quote-nest-1 odd"><div class="quote-author"><em class="placeholder">pumpkinangel</em> wrote:</div>   Telling them that they can't have it all is giving them a glass ceiling.  &lt;/p&gt;</blockquote></p><p>No.  No, it really isn't.</p>

I disagree, while it may not be the traditional barrier that is in place for many working woman, it is a barrier that that parent places over the child, which is a bit shocking for a parent to do to a child.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 4:57pm

jamblessedthree wrote:
Exactly, The failure is in the population that refuses to acknowledge sacrifice, compromise and give and take to reach a common goal, It's the I want it all and now mentality that I will never undersgtand, And the justifying that it's ok to raise our children (if mostly girls in the context of this thread) this way is incredible! What a selfish idealogy.

Nobody said anyting about wanting it all and wanting it now or anything about not acknowledging failure, sacrifice....quite the opposite Jam, quite the opposite.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 5:06pm

<<In this one instance, I agree with Thardy, but probably for different reasons. Feminism has been misrepresented by the "having it all" formulation. It sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism – as opposed to persistent gender inequity – that’s to blame. Feminism gave my generation more choices, and there can be upside and downsides to all choices, but at least we can make choices that were unavailable to prior generations of women.>>

I wasn't thinking of the glass ceiling in only the traditional feminism way only.  I was thinking of it more in a way of how Jam and hardy are limiting the options of their children (both boys and girls) by already telling them at a young age, they can't have it all.  Perhaps not the right comparasion but it came to mind with the limits that those posters are describing to their children.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 5:09pm

You know, when my younger kid was about ten, he wrote out his "life plan."  He was going to be a professional baseball player from 18-25, then retire from that and be an astronaut from 25-40, then retire from that and go live in the country and open a no-kill cat shelter for sick and unwanted pets.   I guess I should have told him he was being unrealistic, hunh?  Instead, we applauded his ambitions.   We knew he probably wasn't going to pro ball, or go into space.  We let him sign up for Little League and sent him to Space Camp and got him a cat, anyway.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 5:14pm

pumpkinangel wrote:
<p><span>&lt;&lt;In this one instance, I agree with Thardy, but probably for different reasons. Feminism has been misrepresented by the "having it all" formulation. It sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism – as opposed to persistent gender inequity – that’s to blame. Feminism gave my generation more choices, and there can be upside and downsides to all choices, but at least we can make choices that were unavailable to prior generations of women.&gt;&gt;</span></p><p><span style="font-size:13px">I wasn't thinking of the glass ceiling in only the traditional feminism way only.  I was thinking of it more in a way of how Jam and hardy are limiting the options of their children (both boys and girls) by already telling them at a young age, they can't have it all.  Perhaps not the right comparasion but it came to mind with the limits that those posters are describing to their children.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:13px"><br /></span></p>

Do you agree with Puss bouquet that she has it all?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 5:19pm

bordwithyou wrote:
<p>You know, when my younger kid was about ten, he wrote out his "life plan."  He was going to be a professional baseball player from 18-25, then retire from that and be an astronaut from 25-40, then retire from that and go live in the country and open a no-kill cat shelter for sick and unwanted pets.   I guess I should have told him he was being unrealistic, hunh?  Instead, we applauded his ambitions.   We knew he probably wasn't going to pro ball, or go into space.  We let him sign up for Little League and sent him to Space Camp and got him a cat, anyway.</p>

If both of your kids' life plans included going to a private and likely more expensive college and then getting their PhDs like you/your dh, would you have gotten them all of that?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 5:22pm

thardy2001 wrote:
<p><blockquote class="quote-msg quote-nest-1 odd"><div class="quote-author"><em class="placeholder">bordwithyou</em> wrote:</div>&lt;p&gt;You know, when my younger kid was about ten, he wrote out his "life plan."  He was going to be a professional baseball player from 18-25, then retire from that and be an astronaut from 25-40, then retire from that and go live in the country and open a no-kill cat shelter for sick and unwanted pets.   I guess I should have told him he was being unrealistic, hunh?  Instead, we applauded his ambitions.   We knew he probably wasn't going to pro ball, or go into space.  We let him sign up for Little League and sent him to Space Camp and got him a cat, anyway.&lt;/p&gt;</blockquote></p><p>If both of your kids' life plans included going to a private and likely more expensive college and then getting their PhDs like you/your dh, would you have gotten them all of that?</p>

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.  We are prepared to pay for our children's undergraduate college wherever they decide to go.  We are not prepared to pay for graduate school, because it's my belief that if you can't get a tuition waiver and an assistantship for a PhD program, you shouldn't be in it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-20-2013
Thu, 02-28-2013 - 5:46pm

thardy2001 wrote:
<p><blockquote class="quote-msg quote-nest-1 odd"><div class="quote-author"><em class="placeholder">pumpkinangel</em> wrote:</div>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;lt;&amp;lt;In this one instance, I agree with Thardy, but probably for different reasons. Feminism has been misrepresented by the "having it all" formulation. It sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism – as opposed to persistent gender inequity – that’s to blame. Feminism gave my generation more choices, and there can be upside and downsides to all choices, but at least we can make choices that were unavailable to prior generations of women.&amp;gt;&amp;gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:13px"&gt;I wasn't thinking of the glass ceiling in only the traditional feminism way only.  I was thinking of it more in a way of how Jam and hardy are limiting the options of their children (both boys and girls) by already telling them at a young age, they can't have it all.  Perhaps not the right comparasion but it came to mind with the limits that those posters are describing to their children.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:13px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</blockquote></p><p>Do you agree with Puss bouquet that she has it all?</p>

I do. Because having it all is entirely subjective. If Kitty says she has it all, who are we to disagree?

On Wednesdays we wear pink.

Pages