Yahoo! Work-at-Home Ban Won’t Affect New Mom Marissa Mayer

If Hitler said 4 + 4 = 8, one'd be obliged to agree with him, right? Marx famously said history was a class struggle. That is of course an oversimplification but to deny class as a strong influence in human affairs just isn't tenable.

Just as if 1,000 out of 100,000 men have a lot of wealth or occupy positions of great influence or power that the other 99,000 men will enjoy much less in the way of the "creature comforts" that the top 1,000 men do, likewise the same is true for 100,000 women divided up the same way.

Every time in history some person "rises to the top", how often do they "remember their roots" and work to make members of their previous class just as well-off as them? Can you recall such a time? I have yet to see a revolutionary of any kind *not* begin living in a nice mansion and have servants, etc., after they successfully concluded their revolution. (When do you suppose was the last time Fidel Castro washed his own dishes?) And they don't go out of their way to do anything much for the ppl who actually supported/fought for them.

Lenin* had a name for ppl who support a cause the aims of which they either don't fully understand or were hornswaggled successfully into believing were benign. He called them "useful idiots". This pretty much nails it. If women (or men) in general thought that having female CEOs will translate into such profit-eating amenities as "free" on-site daycare, guess again-- unless you work for a company that's fairly rolling in so much cash it doesn't know what to do with it. Now sr. staff such as VPs and CEOs getting it-- well, that's a different story!

---
* Attribution to Lenin has been disputed.

I don't really see a problem with this, and I don't see how it relates to men's rights.

Companies need efficient employees. If working at home was efficient I am sure they would keep allowing it, so I assume it has not been efficient, so it is getting the ax. This all has to do with getting the most productivity out of your employees, so the company can create a product or service at a competitive price.

As far as her having her own private nursery installed?....The owners of the company must feel it is cost effective. It may or may not be, but the owners are the ones who get to decide things like this and they take the risk. It's no different than a male CEO installing a private excersize room with private shower.

Business owners have to be careful about employee morale. Having upper management receiving visible perks while telling the lower workers to suck it up, does not always work out so well. However, I assume higher management puts in longer hours, more stress, etc. Higher management often has different policies and better perks.

It is all a balance. If they make money they will keep it up and do anything to keep her as CEO, if they loose money, they will re-evaluate policies and make changes.

It shows the assertion feminists have made in the past that more female CEOs will translate into a more "progressive" company climate, including such perks as on-site childcare, work-from-home, flextime, etc. This is just one example of how what they have said turns out not to be true. Debunking feminists myths directly pertains to men's rights.

There's nothing wrong with having a female CEO at the helm of a company. What is wrong is asserting falsely that such will translate into better working terms for employees-- but as this case shows, you can count on it translating into better terms for the CEO. People who believed that were hornswaggled, just like Lenin's supporters. Whenever a promise sounds too good to be true or seems to play right into one's hopes, that's usually a sign that it's too good to be true. But ppl fall for it, again and again.