This is absurd. Were women not breeding during the about 100,000 years of human history where nobody had paid maternity leave? It's always been 'doable'.
I'm confused as to why you would try this argument; surely you're aware the role of women as well as that of the family has changed considerable in recent history?
So you're against the sentiment behind the egg-freezing offer, but not the egg-freezing offer itself?
If a woman decides to do it on her own, without being pressured into it by corporate policy, then who am I to argue?
The sentiment is "it's better for your career that you don't take a year off every few years to breed". Is that message morally wrong? Why?
First off; "...that you don't take a year off every few years to breed"; is that really what you think of women?
Secondly; it's wrong because it's top-down pressure.
Except the senior executives, you can be assured they won't be paying, either financially or in increased workloads, so that having children becomes more 'doable' for some people.
Of course they won't, because they're the the kind of psychopathic bastards that claim it's perfectly okay to lay off half the workers and run a company into the ground so long as it produces a nice stock return, and still get a 10 million dollar bonus while their employees dig around in the dirt for scraps.
Typically, they have to train up a new employee anyway -- someone has to do the work that the person was doing before they went on leave.
Ignoring the fact that A), maternity leave doesn't have to be taken all at once, B) it is actually, typically, not necessary to train up a new employee, since most companies have enough slack in their workforce for the expressed purpose of someone being temporarily unavailable.
then someone's paying the cost. Either the organisation (if the farmed out work is to waged individuals who spend longer hours at work) or the salaried individuals (who do not get compensated on an hourly basis).
Forgive me for not feeling any sympathy for the fact that Apple, with it's 50 billion dollars cash reserve, has to pay a little overtime to the employees picking up the slack.
But you've contradicted yourself: a social obligation is a social (ie the government, which means the public) obligation, not a corporate one.
I don't think you understand what the word 'contradiction' means. Or for that matter, what the term 'social obligation' means. You DO understand that corporations are a PART of society, right? So even from just that fact, they are subject so social obligations the same as every other organization within society. But wait; cause in fact they arguably have a *greater* responsibility than any other organization. Why? Because unlike the government, which is by the people for the people; corporations are by the people, for the few. It is society that enables corporations to make profit (both by working for them, and consuming their products and services). That means they have a moral obligation to give something in return. Sure, they pay taxes; but those taxes are already ridiculously low, and in any case even if they weren't, they'd still have a debt of obligation to take care of their employees.
Also, do you think Apple is providing this benefit to the people assembling its products in China? I can assure you they are not. So, leaving it to employers means the already-privileged (people working at a Fortune 500 company with already-handsome working condiitions) get even more privileged, whilst others get something substandard or nothing at all.
What on earth gave you the impression that I'd be okay with letting employers take care of it (incidentally, I never said corporations had to foot the entire bill themselves, just that they have an obligation to their employees) "however they see fit"? Do I honestly strike you as the kind of person who, if I had the power, would let Apple fuck over its Chinese workers so that the rich white guys back at HQ can keep their christmas bonuses?