You are obviously choosing to ignore the one great difference between men and women - it's the woman that bears the child, the man does not.
They are treating everyone equally - every person that actually delivers a baby gets three months paid maternity leave. Every person that impregnates another person gets two months off. That "tends" to fall along gender lines, but let's consider same-sex couples:
- If two men "arrange" for a surrogate to carry their baby, do both men get two months paid leave?
- If two women "arrange" for a surrogate to carry their baby, do both women get three months paid leave or two?
- If two women draw straws and one of them carries a baby and delivers, do both women get three months paid leave, or does the woman that carried & delivered the baby get three months paid leave and her partner gets two months?
I suspect the answers to the above answers will show the policy to be legal and fair, and by the way, if the whiners are going to have any impact on Yahoo to change their policy, I strongly suspect they will back on the benefit for new mothers 33 1/3% rather than increase the father's paid leave 50%.
Ah, so you're from the camp that defines equal in whatever what you want. So, women should get the same pay as a man for the same job (they should), they should have the same chance for a promotion as an equally qualified man (they should). Oh, they should get the same time off as a man? No, they get more because they're women.
Your logic could also be easily used to justify lower pay for women (they tend to get pregnant and leave you in a lurch), fewer promotions (same reason) and probably other things I haven't thought of.
You cannot argue for equal rights between the genders and then turn around and say that a clearly unequal policy is equal because it "tends to fall on gender lines". Policies are either racially and gender blind or they are not. I'm not saying whether I'm for or against women getting more time off. What I am saying is that you cannot simply construct some backwards logic to say that this is 'equal' in the manner in which it is unequal and therefore not discrimination.
The policy at hand is clearly discriminatory and blatantly unequal. Whether that is a bad thing or not I leave as a separate question but by supporting the policy you support discrimination and unequal policies and there is no way around that.