Unhealthy Feminism

Marissa Mayers, the beautiful 37-year-old techie who became Yahoo’s CEO last summer, was bound to disappoint.  Feminists were ecstatic that, in the third trimester of her pregnancy, Mayers accepted hire as the youngest leader of a Fortune 500 Company. At the time, it didn’t seem to occur to Mayers’ cheerleading-squad that her child would soon be born; that balancing work and family is actually a whole lot more difficult than simply bragging to financial journalists about your awesome balance between work and family.

Yet, after opting for a mere 2-weeks of maternity leave and constructing a nursery beside her executive office, Mayer’s upped the feminist ante: cracking down on women who work at Yahoo from home.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times admits she believed Mayer’s new job at Yahoo meant less “bias against hiring women who were expecting.” Yet Dowd’s dreams have apparently been dashed. In her latest column, Dowd  aims the following complaints against Mayers:

She seems to believe that enough employees are goofing off at home that she should bring them off the cloud and into the cubicle. But she should also be sympathetic to the very different situation of women — and men — struggling without luxurious layers of help.

Dowd is partially right to read Mayer’s idea of the working woman as out-of-touch. But why did Dowd ever think this mom-on-steroids-scheme could offer an appropriate model? Was there ever really a mass conspiracy against hiring pregnant CEOS? Or is Meyers just alarmingly Type-A in her priorities?

Many women desire both a successful career and children. I know I do. However, Meyer’s choice to make her Yahoo debut on the same day she publicly announced her pregnancy doesn’t offer a reasonable model for reasonable women—no matter how they politically categorize themselves. Instead, the Silicon Valley’ superstar’s decision just before giving birth looked scripted—as if she were warming up to a give a speech at a N.O.W conference rather than preparing for a new child.

Contrary to Mayer’s new workplace policy, the Internet has actually been a boon to moms’ who want to stay part-time or keep up with their careers while home with young children. I’m assuming the Web has also rendered working mothers more economically viable and efficient. I leave it up to individual employers to determine what level of physical presence in the office is needed in their sector, though I think Mayer’s ban on working from home is hostile to family life.

Unfortunately, the Meyers drama—and feminists reactions to it—exposes the directionless nature of the women’s movement. Sure, Sandra Fluke & Co. told us during the 2012 campaign that they were fighting for higher wages and “abortion rights.” But these so-called priorities work against the goals of many—if not the majority—of women. Take as an example the fact that feminists cheered Meyers for her alpha-woman persona but are now deriding her for having the chutzpah to think she could “have it all”—and jeopardize her young family in the process.

“Feminism” has become such a slippery term, that I, for one, don’t want much to do with it. I believe in equal legal rights for both men and women but also acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between what each gender desires, decides, and needs. I probably would have marched with Susan B. Anthony, although Gloria Steinem gives me a headache.

Attacking polite and respectful men for their so-called “benevolent sexism” is totally counterproductive. So is turning your leadership at Yahoo into a spectacle of “easy” mothering. My vision is for a brand of feminism that rids itself of all that 1970’s angst, infighting, and disregard for productive relationships and families.  Here’s to aiming for women’s actual happiness, health, and wellbeing.