Marissa Mayer: Crisis Over Motherhood and Womanhood in the 21st Century

On July 16, 2012 Marissa Mayer was named the President and CEO of Yahoo! and became both the youngest and the first pregnant CEO of a Fortune 500 company. At nearly 7 months pregnant, Mayer told Fortune, “I like to stay in the rhythm of things. My maternity leave will be a few weeks long and I'll work throughout it." Her choice to forego maternity leave caused uproar among working and stay-at-home mothers over the importance of bonding with one’s child, the pressure on women to perform as equals to their male counterparts, and Mayer’s personal parenting choice as a public figure.

While the debates have drawn attention to both the inadequacies of American policies on paid family leave and the “society-wide struggle to reconcile women’s growing power with their maternal role,” as outlined by Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast, it has also revealed our anxieties about biology in defining gender expectations. The bulk of the critiques are rooted in the desire to make Mayer the posterwoman for working mothers who successfully achieve the work-life balance. Her failure to fulfill the maternal role prescribed by other working mothers like Todays Mom and Mommyish has angered some feminists and mothers who think Mayer’s choice is shortsighted, a bad example for working mothers, and a slap in the face to the nurturing maternal role. The Washington Post’s Janice D’Arcy asks, “What’s the benefit of a new mom in such a high-profile position if she’s going to act like she doesn’t need maternity leave?” D’Arcy adds, “does Mayer have a responsibility to advocate for the rest of working parents?”

Given the pressure on Mayer to be a figure of a specific agenda, the anxiety over her choice to skip maternity leave is clearly based on her biological difference as a pregnant woman CEO of a Fortune 500 company. While some have resisted acknowledging the importance of Mayer’s biology, it remains the crux of the debate. Roland Martin of CNN writes in his article, “Focus on Marissa Mayer’s brain, not her pregnancy,” “Every time a woman is in position to ascend to the top post, be it in politics or business, we immediately begin to question her uterus instead of her brain.” Roland is correct to point out the problematic gendered critique of Mayer’s choice and its distraction from her intellectual merit, but his analysis is incomplete because biology was on the table when Mayer was initially praised as the first pregnant CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Mayer’s biology has been both honored and claimed irrelevant: we cannot have it both ways, and in fact it is important.

Martin’s observations tap into the longtime debate among feminists over the importance of biology. They have been divided on the role of biology in defining womanhood since the 1970s, caught between claiming whether womanhood is based on biology or if it is a social construct (see Judith Butler). In the case of Mayer, if biology doesn’t matter then the focus should shift to her intellect. If it does, the feminist lens should focus on Mayer’s choice as a mother and professional woman instead of prescribing and projecting a social role.

What harm does this debate really cause among working mothers and social roles on the whole? It is not simply the void of a role model or the struggle for better paid family leave or even the definition of the maternal role: it is the failure to respect individual women’s choices as mothers and as businesswomen. Mayer has become a caricature of an agenda composed of projections by professional male counterparts, working mothers, stay-at-home mothers, and future mothers. The placing of a woman or a group of women on a pedestal of projected norms and expectations ironically participates in part of what feminism has responded to for decades. Women should not be expected to conform to specific gender roles, social norms, or specific choices and should instead be empowered to make their own decisions and fulfill their own personal expectations for themselves.

Regardless of opinions about Mayer’s shortsightedness in skipping maternity leave, on her foregoing the opportunity to be a role model for working mothers, and her failure to use her public image to draw attention to paid family leave issues in America, Mayer is still entitled to her choice as a working woman and future mother. Given that her biology has put her in the spotlight as a pregnant woman, our 21^st century progressive focus needs to shift toward Mayer’s entitlement to choose her own biological, maternal, and professional roles.