No! When you have after school activities outside of school starting at 3:30 or 4PM on a week day! Also, why does Hebrew School have to start at 4:15? In NYC, the demand from, working parents was high enough that Hebrew School is combined with Sunday school --- only one day a week on Sundays!

Life outside of school is still-centered on an old-fashioned schedule -- stay-at-home mom and working dad! Get real! Either work places schedules need to adjust or after school sports, schools, etc.

Our own park district has very few classes for kids that are available for working moms. Anne-Marie Slaughter is correct! School and activities are based on a family model that is not as common as it used to be.

stop complaining and move on... My mom raised 14 kids with no help from anyone. she worked her butt off in a factory with no air to support us...so when i hear modern day women crying and complaining ??? They are spoil big time and they gotta it made compare to moms in the old days. Today' s moms ? would not last one day in my mom shoes.
stop crying and complaining.

The article is about a woman whose compensation is $60 million. I think she would be able to struggle by even if she needed to take off some unpaid time.

Regarding folks in the real world, although the question is poorly worded, having children IS a choice as is everything else in life. We, as a society, have been unrealistic in our expectation that somehow society should help support our private life choices.

Pull up your Dora big girl panties and deal with it cupcake.

Grandpa, our society pays lip service to the importance of parenting well, but through its actions shows that this is not truly a priority, and women bear the brunt of this. Have you ever given birth, cared night and day for newborns while holding down a job that is necessary for your family's survival, and/or your need to contribute your gifts and talents to the world? Didn't think so. Women who are juggling these real and important demands are not the "cupcakes" you insultingly describe them to be.

In the UK, mothers get 6 months statutory paid maternity leave and fathers get 2 weeks statutory paid paternity leave. The UK economy is in the same condition as the US. Other Western European countries have more generous maternity leave packages and their companies cope absolutely fine. (Don't talk about Greece).
The problem is one of US politics and the nation being right of center. The USA is meant to be a world leader, but when you look at the lack of a universal health system, maternity leave and the political system - the USA has a very long way to go to build a better society for everyone in it - not just the rich.

There are many people complaining that women don't make as much as men doing the same job now a days, supossedly. As this survey says, if you start adding on MORE benefits, women specific, then is it any wonder they do get paid less? It's tough now a days for everyone. I don't fault women for needing to go get jobs to help make essential ends meet, but fair or not, we are the baby machines and their are certain risks for an employer to hire a child bearing age woman. In this economy, you can't expect a employer to just suck it up.

That whole get a job to send your kids to daycare thing confuses me to no end, just as a side note. I really feel if you can swing it, though very tough, mom or dad should be at home raising their kids. They need YOUR values and training, not the babysitters. The heart break you feel leaving your kids at one of those places is put there for a reason. You and your child are connected that no one else should take.

Though I'm sure unpopular, this is just my opinion.

Marissa Maher is a huge liberal. Did anyone ever think that Yahoo could go further to the left? they are the biggest liberal propaganda outfit out there. People don't realize that, but Yahoo does a great job in reporting positive things for the left and negative things for the right. Maher will continue this tradition.

To Dan....two words: FOX NEWS.

Any objective and intelligent person associates Fox with the National Inquirer.

PTO, and school districts in general. park districts. Doctors offices schedules. Health club class schedules so many entities are geared to a stay at home parent or ....just NOT someone that is employed during the day.

If I made 60 million, when I was a working mother, yes, I could have had it all.
However, I had my kids before the Family Leave Act, came into play. I went to work exactly 6 weeks after I had both kids. Daycare costs a lot and in the end, its really a wash. You pay out most of your salary for someone else to watch the kids. I finally quit my job when the kids were 18 mos & 3 years old. Every time one of them had a fever while I was working, I had to leave work, go get them and try to be at the drs. office before 5pm. Of course, I never got a raise, since I was always leaving work. If they were sick, I couldn't take them to day care & therefore, could not go to work. In the end, we decided that it would be cheaper for me to stay home than go to work. I hardly think a pregnant woman who makes $60 mil a year is the right example. She is going to have: round the clock care for her kid, so yes she can take 3 weeks off, work from her home office, etc.

Hey Barry, first of all it's National Enquirer, not "Inquirer". Secondly the fact that you state "Any objective and intelligent person associates Fox with the National Inquirer", shows that you are neither. I can only imagine the non-partasian hacks at MSDNC are you're source for "news". Admittedly, they do have an unfair advantage, being the only network with a correspondent embedded securely in Obama's keester!

For some families with the economy the way it is now, they must both work to survive. No, we do not support working women enough.

No, we do not do enough to support mothers or fathers, or families for that matter. This issue begins prior to the birth, of course. Starting with full, quality pre-natal care (which if a woman is working she must be able to attend to all the appointments that go with this critical part of her pregnancy) to delivery and the first days after birth (why can't the father be off of work too at this critical time to support the mother?) to the first few months and first year (unpaid leave means a cruel choice for some). If you have means, you are OK (maybe not where you want to be still) but if you are, like a growing number of American families, you do not.

Not to be sexist or anything but how about working dads? I happen to be a single father of two. Other than a paltry social security check, there is no support out there.

Why should people with their own families or people without families have to support the choices of other people to have families?

Basically, working mothers want the benefits of having a job while asking others to shoulder the costs of having children. Fie on free-loaders. Someone has to care for children. Before having them, it behooves a woman to know who that someone will be and who will be providing the support for that care if she isn't willing or able to do both.

In my day, a woman married a man who was capable of supporting her children (and who bought insurance against his untimely death or disability) so she could stay home and raise them. When they were old enough, she returned to work for the extras and college, if that was necessary, but knew that she and/or the family would have to juggle the chores that she used to do as part of her role in the family.

Too many women want to have it all -- not possible. Either you raise your children or someone else does, and that person has to be paid. Most of us lived in smaller houses, had modest vacations, one car for many years, not many new clothes or meals out. That was the price paid for mothers at home to provide care and security for their children and help for aging family members.

Those of us who paid the price now have stable grown children and numerous, nice grandchildren. Well worth any sacrifice of things along the way.

Your comments ignore the reality that women, Luke men, train now for careers that require long hours. No one asks or expects men to choose between professional careers and having children...why should women be expected to "choose?" No one is talking about free-loading...we're talking about realizing that women need time to prepare for, and recover from child are and round-the-clock newborns, and societies that recognize women as full people worthy of respect and dignity (rather than"baby machines)" recognize that they should probably get at least a little paid family leave, as should the father. Also it makes sense as a society to think about how we schedule activities for kids and work life so working parents(male and female) aren't caught in the middle.

@LG Absolutely appropriate thread as part of this conversation. And on that note, coincidentally, I must finish my "D. Coke and pretzel break" and get back to my kids! Looking forward to reading more comments.

Excuse iPhone typing....meant to say "women need time to prepare for and recover from, and bond with infants." I son't think working mothers are looking for a hand-out from society at all. Hist reasonable conditions under which to do both their jobs. And a liittke respect. BYW, I think working fathers should have some flex-time and family leave too, because most of the fathers I know wish they could spend more time with their kids. And the kids them them to.

I have several comments, so hold on . . .

First of all, could the writer of this article have chosen anyone more out-of-touch with reality than the CEO of Yahoo? Of course she's a lib who feels that she's owed everything and, by golly, working moms deserve to be financed by their employers for having children! It's owed to them!

Second, in an office setting there are always other employees who have to pick up the slack for the woman who has to give birth every year like clockwork, or the moms who have to take little Janie to the doctor or little Johnnie to a baseball game. Are these other employees ever compensated for the extra work they take on? NO, it's 'you run along and take care of your child and give the extra work to Abby to complete as you're leaving.'

(continued)

Third, one of my former employers had a strict policy that moms who work from home cannot take care of their children at the same time. In other words, if you are working from home anytime during the week, your children have to be in daycare during that time because you are expected to be WORKING. What a concept! It also applied if you were caring for an elderly person in your home. Now, did individual managers with this company follow this policy to the letter? NO! Some of them actually looked the other way and allowed working moms to take care of their children while being paid to work. Whatever work that wasn't completed by the working moms was given to other employees to do.

One caveat if businesses are told to give working moms fully paid maternity leave at the employer's expense, less working moms will have jobs and fewer women of child-bearing years will be hired by corporations. Thus, making women like me--no longer of child bearing years--more appealing to employers.

We do more than enough for working moms. If they can't handle the pressure, maybe they shouldn't have children.

Oops should say "kids need their dadst also.."

Abigail, would you ever say to a man: "If you can't handle holding down a job and being the main caregiver for young children...maybe you should forget having a job, or forget about having children?" All the women I know are asking for is a society that respects them enough to allow them to use their Gid-given talents and brains AND be the good, loving, capable mothers they want to be without forcing them to choose. Men are not asked to make these heart-wrenching choices nearly as often as women are.

Above should say "God-given" --excuse the iPhone typing again!

Do we have any sense of shared sense of responsibility for one another in regards to this issue? If you believe no, then it is likely you will not be supportive of this topic. If you believe yes, then it is likely you will be supportive of this topic. These are generalizations and ranges exist in-between of course. So, having said that, can we see each other's point-of-view? Do our experiences alone dictate our position on this issue? Do we have the ability to change our opinion? This is the challenge of American today, possible division with little room to move. Let's see how this discussion continues to unfold.

Jac, I like your tone. It's important to be open.

Abigail, glad you think it's basically OK for women to have kids and work outside the home.

Fact: many women in the US MUST work to support their families. The cost of living has gone up tremendously since the 1950s and 60s. And many women feel they need to work to preserve their sanity, to use their God-given brains and gifts and contribute fully to the world. Women in US and elsewhere still do most of the laundry, cooking, childcare, shopping, and other household chores. So if they work outside the home, as many must and many choose to, they work a 2nd shift when they get home. Is that "special treatment?"

Once I asked a friend of ours, a science professor at a well-respected university, which was harder: teaching graduate students and running a laboratory, or taking care of his very young daughter? He said without a moment's hesitation, "Definitely taking care of my daughter."

If you've ever cared for a child, you know it can be exhausting and demanding as well as joyful. I think women need time to recover after giving birth (which can involve complications for both mother and baby) and to learn how to bond, care for, and breastfeed (if possible and chosen). I think our society should respect mothers and children enough to recognize this is WORK -- and give new moms (and dads) a little paid time off. As a society, do we really care about creating healthy families...or is that just lip service?

Jac, not I or anyone else should be held responsible for another person's decision. As for seeing your point of view--yes, I can see that you think all of us should give in to the whims of others, but it won't happen. Each person needs to accept responsibility for their own actions and not expect others to pay or support them.

So, Abigail, following your logic, employees shouldn't be held responsible for any of their employees' decisions.

Therefore:

Employers shouldn't have to give employees sick pay -- because the employees may have chosen to neglect to take care of their health.

Employees shouldn't pay vacation time to people who "choose" to take a vacation.

Why should employees pay disability compensation to someone who chose to get out of bed that day and wasn't omniscient enough to avoid a falling object?

Why should family leave be offerd to anyone with a sick family member -- he or she should "Bear the brunt of the expense and responsibility." If an employee's elderly parent is ill and going to kick the bucket -- it's not the employer's problem.

This is the extension of your logic.

Nope, you are caricaturing my position. I'm not a socialist, although I do believe a fair and just society is more than just "every man (and woman) out for him/her self."
I don't think employers should pay for all our needs.
But 12 weeks paid leave sounds like a reasonable, respectful amount for working mothers.
Sweden and Canada, two examples of countries which offer paid family leave, are not "going broke."
Maybe the CEOs with excessive exhorbitant salaries could trim them a bit so that their employees can work and raise children under decent conditions?
And you know what? I WOULD be willing to take a pay cut to work in a company that treated ALL of it employees decently and respectfully, and took seriously balancing work and family life.

In our current paradigm, family life has been destroyed. Children are just fed right into the system because WORK has become #1. There is more to life than this and deep down you know this. You are always yearning for something more.

In a better world we would take care of our own. Do you know what it means to be self-sufficient? No, it has nothing to do with running a company or having a vault of paper 'ioweu' fiat money. Some rich people don't even know how to drive a car or other basic skills that we take for granted.

So, the short answer is the system can't be fixed. It needs a re-boot.

Teach the (wo)man to fish [live a self-and community-sufficient lifestyle], don't just give her/him a fish.

Abigail, you keep mentioning other countries going bankrupt...have you seen the U.S. balance sheets?

We are all sinking. Better to have tried to keep your citizens afloat than the Banksters who started the mess.

I've seen three or four articles (outside this one) on this general topic in the last few days.

What I've personally found interesting is that ALL of these articles evolved into, "Yes you have the paid leave benefit, but are confident enough to take all of it?" Then every article included a couple paragraphs about how employees are nervous to take take their full vacation benefit also. THAT'S THE REAL STORY AND ALL OF US KNOW IT'S OUT THERE!!

Forget supporting moms or families. Corporations have built a culture where all of us are hesitant to take all the benefits supposedly given to us ... and that includes leave for new mothers.

The government will only help you kill babies, not work to provide a good life for them....

There is an underlying belief facing women, children and families in the US: Women and children in the US are not valued. Just look at all the crimes that are committed against women and children. Just look at the Penn State scandal. Again and again, women and children are "thrown under the bus" and expected to fend for themselves OR worse, blamed and dismissed for barbaric behavior committed against them. Is it no wonder that families in the US are deteriorating?

There is an underlying poison forming this divisive way to view the world, and I think it's Obama's fault. We are all people, and to group people by sex, race, gay, straight, Christian non-Christian, union non-union, is pure evil. Honestly there seems to be more and more of this, and it is done to secure votes by pointing fingers.

In a very practical way, could we say that if we do not provide early support for children/parents (including quality pre-natal care) that we may pay instead down the road in terms of delinquency, arrests, drug use, etc... (a generalization, I know) and at a much higher price? This does not define how I look at this subject but as the issue of who pays has come up in the postings, let's give this one a whirl. Essentially, pay now or pay later. Thoughts?

Absolutely, Jac. Pay now or pay later. We can already see that at work.

Let's not forget that the far R will eliminate access to contraception, and womens' preventive care if they can....not profitable, and not ok with the religious right. No bc means no choice about if or when to get pregnant. Much of the rest of the country is back to fighting basic battles like access to womens' health care of any kind, much less care for children so both sexes could be both more productive when working, and more secure in the care of their children and their job. Reproductive choice only happens when one has the resources to make the choice.

@Laura - Very true! The research on the value of early childhood nutrition and education is very convincing.

@D'skidoc - Yes, it's still an oddity to me that we debate a woman's access to reproductive health care including decisions about her own body! We do not do the same for a man. Why? Does this fit into our support, or lack of support for working moms? What do you think?

"No bc means no choice about if or when to get pregnant." No brain means no opinions about anything should be shared with others.

Jac, you are far more eloquent than I but I think its an anachronistic, superstitious, misogynistic, religious, patriarchal, fear mongering mess!!!

McCloud: huh?