Feminist complains about women getting workplace entitlements

[Metaphor]

A leading Australian workplace relations expert has labelled a policy of paying female staff to freeze their eggs and delay childbirth as a "loaded option" that commodifies women's lives.

Professor Marian Baird, who heads up the Women and Work Research Group at the University of Sydney's Business School, said she was "astonished" when she first heard news of the policies in place at tech giants Apple and Facebook, and questioned the business case behind them.

"Here are companies basically buying the ability of their talented female employees and giving them some sort of capitalist incentive to delay having children – which may not even work," she said.

Apple announced it would pay up to $US20,000 ($22,953) to cover the costs of freezing and storing eggs of full-time and part-time female staff, from January 1, 2015.

Facebook also confirmed it had introduced a similar policy on January 1 this year, accessible by US employees covered by the company's insurance plan. The benefit covers all costs of egg freezing for medical and non-medical reasons, also up to $US20,000.

So, let's get this straight: two elite-level employers introduce a policy that is intended to encourage women to enter and remain in the workforce, and get $20,000 worth of benefits that male employees do not get, but this 'commodifies' them?

If being commodified means I can get free resources, can I too be commodified please?

Dr Tony Bartone, president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association, told Fairfax Media "no employer should determine when a women can have a baby, or any other pregnancy and/or contraception decisions".

Far from dictating when women should fall pregnant, Apple says the policy empowers female staff members. Facebook declined to comment.

Apple, for once in its life, is right.

However Professor Baird said the policies sent a subliminal message to women that freezing their eggs and having children later may be the best option for their careers.

"This is a real dilemma for women as they often reach their peak career times at the best time to have a baby," Professor Baird said.

"We already see that women who have babies are not seen to be committed. It's a very loaded option."

Professor Baird said the decision by US companies to take advantage of the "social freezing" trend was evidence of "the cycle of employment" further encroaching into "the cycle of life".

Is it shocking that companies want their employees to remain full time workers, especially in companies that employ high level workers, and give them incentives to do so? How shocking. I'm shocked.

(Of course, Apple's policy doesn't apply outside the U.S., so the Chinese workers assembling their products won't see any benefit whatever).

"No company introduces a policy without a business case," she said, but questioned whether such a case was sound from both a corporate and personal perspective.

Such policies were "commodifying the whole fertility process", she said.

Why is women being given more options about their fertility a bad thing?

A case of you can't please everybody, or a case of some people are never satisfied?

 

[Togo]

Why is women being given more options about their fertility a bad thing?

Because once the option is out there, people don't trust the company not to put pressure or expectations on woman to take up that option, even if it is in all ways inferior to the alternative.

It's the same reason that workplace contracts that waive rights to sue the company for safety infringements would be a bad thing. Yes it's another safety option, and therefore a benefit according to your logic, but under what circumstances would such a contract be signed? It's hard to avoid the idea that the company wouldn't introduce such contracts unless it was having trouble meeting safety standards, and intended to somehow persuade employees to accept them as an alternative.

Now look back at the 'alternative option' to having children. See the problem now?

If these companies had sensible maternity and paternity policies, they wouldn't need to introduce this.

 

[Metaphor]

Why is women being given more options about their fertility a bad thing?

Because once the option is out there, people don't trust the company not to put pressure or expectations on woman to take up that option, even if it is in all ways inferior to the alternative.

It's the same reason that workplace contracts that waive rights to sue the company for safety infringements would be a bad thing. Yes it's another safety option, and therefore a benefit according to your logic, but under what circumstances would such a contract be signed? It's hard to avoid the idea that the company wouldn't introduce such contracts unless it was having trouble meeting safety standards, and intended to somehow persuade employees to accept them as an alternative.

Now look back at the 'alternative option' to having children. See the problem now?

If these companies had sensible maternity and paternity policies, they wouldn't need to introduce this.

No, I don't see the problem, or rather, I think it's a problem for a very different reason that you do. The problem is that it discriminates against older employees, men, and women who do not intend to have children. $20,000 is a lot of money, and it's going to come from somewhere: probably from the total pool of employee remuneration. Therefore all the people who don't use this option (the aforementioned groups) will be paying for the individual women who do.

What's a sensible parental leave policy? How do you know Facebook and Apple don't have them? Who should pay for them? Evidently, the parents aren't going to be paying for them, they're the ones who'll be getting them.

Or is breeding such a public benefit that I should thank my lucky stars that people do it at all, and never mind how much everyone else has to give up?

 

[dystopian]

This doesn't particularly empower women at all; rather it sends very much the wrong message; "If you don't wait with having kids till later in life, then don't expect your career to take off with us." It may not be explicit, but it's certainly implied; all the denial in the world on the part of these companies won't change that. Plus, they couldn't possibly have picked a worse time to announce a policy like this. At a time when wealth inequality is at record highs, unemployment worldwide keeps rising, automation keeps making more and more jobs obsolete, they're essentially telling women that they should stop having babies so they can keep working nightmare hours for the big corporate overlords instead? It's like the executives behind this (and their supports) have lost all touch with reality.

Plus you know, it falls into a very conservative and traditional mindset of trying to control/manipulate women's bodies. You can pretend it's about giving them a choice, but when you elevate this to a policy instead of doing it in specific cases that are driven by the female employees themselves, you make it clear that it's not about choice at all.

 

[Underseer]

This doesn't particularly empower women at all; rather it sends very much the wrong message; "If you don't wait with having kids till later in life, then don't expect your career to take off with us." It may not be explicit, but it's certainly implied; all the denial in the world on the part of these companies won't change that. Plus, they couldn't possibly have picked a worse time to announce a policy like this. At a time when wealth inequality is at record highs, unemployment worldwide keeps rising, automation keeps making more and more jobs obsolete, they're essentially telling women that they should stop having babies so they can keep working nightmare hours for the big corporate overlords instead? It's like the executives behind this (and their supports) have lost all touch with reality.

Plus you know, it falls into a very conservative and traditional mindset of trying to control/manipulate women's bodies. You can pretend it's about giving them a choice, but when you elevate this to a policy instead of doing it in specific cases that are driven by the female employees themselves, you make it clear that it's not about choice at all.

How dare you criticize the aristocracy! Communist!

Sorry. Couldn't resist. I tried. Honest. I did.

 

[Metaphor]

This doesn't particularly empower women at all; rather it sends very much the wrong message; "If you don't wait with having kids till later in life, then don't expect your career to take off with us." It may not be explicit, but it's certainly implied; all the denial in the world on the part of these companies won't change that. Plus, they couldn't possibly have picked a worse time to announce a policy like this. At a time when wealth inequality is at record highs, unemployment worldwide keeps rising, automation keeps making more and more jobs obsolete, they're essentially telling women that they should stop having babies so they can keep working nightmare hours for the big corporate overlords instead? It's like the executives behind this (and their supports) have lost all touch with reality.

Plus you know, it falls into a very conservative and traditional mindset of trying to control/manipulate women's bodies. You can pretend it's about giving them a choice, but when you elevate this to a policy instead of doing it in specific cases that are driven by the female employees themselves, you make it clear that it's not about choice at all.

If you're horrified by policies that give elite women at elite organisations free resources to incentivize delaying pregnancy, because they 'manipulate' women's bodies, you must be all the more horrified at maternity leave policies, which directly incentivize women to become pregnant.

Or ought women's bodies be manipulated only in ways you approve of?

 

[dystopian]

If you're horrified by policies that give elite women at elite organisations free resources to incentivize delaying pregnancy, because they 'manipulate' women's bodies, you must be all the more horrified at maternity leave policies, which directly incentivize women to become pregnant.

Or ought women's bodies be manipulated only in ways you approve of?

No, only in ways *they themselves* want and initiate; which is the case with maternity leave policies (which do not incentivize anything, not by a long shot). You don't seem to understand the difference.

 

[Metaphor]

If you're horrified by policies that give elite women at elite organisations free resources to incentivize delaying pregnancy, because they 'manipulate' women's bodies, you must be all the more horrified at maternity leave policies, which directly incentivize women to become pregnant.

Or ought women's bodies be manipulated only in ways you approve of?

No, only in ways *they themselves* want and initiate; which is the case with maternity leave policies (which do not incentivize anything, not by a long shot). You don't seem to understand the difference.

Of course maternity leave incentivises having children. It makes the option of having children much more financially attractive.

And no, I don't understand the difference, except that one option encourages women to have children; the other option encourages them to delay. Neither of them 'manipulates' women.

(Both options, of course, mean men, older women, and fertile women who wish to remain child-free will pay for the women who choose to take advantage of the benefit).

 

[Togo]

If you're horrified by policies that give elite women at elite organisations free resources to incentivize delaying pregnancy, because they 'manipulate' women's bodies, you must be all the more horrified at maternity leave policies,

I am horrified by maternity leave policies, although not for the reasons you seem to. They should apply to both parents, not just one, so that we don't reinforce the cultural stereotype of woman being the only caregivers.

 

[Metaphor]

If you're horrified by policies that give elite women at elite organisations free resources to incentivize delaying pregnancy, because they 'manipulate' women's bodies, you must be all the more horrified at maternity leave policies,

I am horrified by maternity leave policies, although not for the reasons you seem to. They should apply to both parents, not just one, so that we don't reinforce the cultural stereotype of woman being the only caregivers.

I agree that if you're going to give people money to breed, the very least you can do is not discriminate by sex.

Exactly why you should give money to people to breed, or people who have recently bred, I'm sure I don't know. People have bred without cash incentives for at least 100,000 years, and they're breeding too fucking much.

 

[TV and credit cards]

And no, I don't understand the difference, except that one option encourages women to have children; the other option encourages them to delay. Neither of them 'manipulates' women.

Well, in one scenario a baby exists and in the other, it doesn't. To explain further, it's much easier to decide not to take care of a minor for 18+ years then to do so.
I would hardly call a few months off incentive for a commitment to raising a child.

 

[Metaphor]

And no, I don't understand the difference, except that one option encourages women to have children; the other option encourages them to delay. Neither of them 'manipulates' women.

Well, in one scenario a baby exists and in the other, it doesn't. To explain further, it's much easier to decide not to take care of a minor for 18+ years then to do so.
I would hardly call a few months off incentive for a commitment to raising a child.

So, if women really want to have a baby, whether they have 'a few months off' with pay won't make a difference, but the ability to freeze their eggs will make a difference?

 

[Playball40]

Because once the option is out there, people don't trust the company not to put pressure or expectations on woman to take up that option, even if it is in all ways inferior to the alternative.

It's the same reason that workplace contracts that waive rights to sue the company for safety infringements would be a bad thing. Yes it's another safety option, and therefore a benefit according to your logic, but under what circumstances would such a contract be signed? It's hard to avoid the idea that the company wouldn't introduce such contracts unless it was having trouble meeting safety standards, and intended to somehow persuade employees to accept them as an alternative.

Now look back at the 'alternative option' to having children. See the problem now?

If these companies had sensible maternity and paternity policies, they wouldn't need to introduce this.

No, I don't see the problem, or rather, I think it's a problem for a very different reason that you do. The problem is that it discriminates against older employees, men, and women who do not intend to have children. $20,000 is a lot of money, and it's going to come from somewhere: probably from the total pool of employee remuneration. Therefore all the people who don't use this option (the aforementioned groups) will be paying for the individual women who do.

What's a sensible parental leave policy? How do you know Facebook and Apple don't have them? Who should pay for them? Evidently, the parents aren't going to be paying for them, they're the ones who'll be getting them.

Or is breeding such a public benefit that I should thank my lucky stars that people do it at all, and never mind how much everyone else has to give up?

That $20,000 would be better spent on decent maternity AND paternity leave.

 

[laughing dog]

A case of you can't please everybody, or a case of some people are never satisfied?

Unsurprisingly, it is both.

 

[dystopian]

Of course maternity leave incentivises having children. It makes the option of having children much more financially attractive.

No, it doesn't. It just makes it more doable.

And no, I don't understand the difference, except that one option encourages women to have children;

I don't usually like stating things as absolute fact, but in this case I'm confident enough to do so. No woman in the history of the planet has ever had children just because their employes gives them maternity leave. If you seriously believe that maternity leave encourages women to have children, you clearly don't understand what thought processes are involved when a woman (or a man, for that matter) decides to have a kid.

the other option encourages them to delay. Neither of them 'manipulates' women.

Please, this policy clearly tries to do exactly that. The message is clear: "Either do this, or expect your career to stall out."; it's intended to manipulate women into not having kids because greedy executives want to squeeze every bit of productivity out of their employees they can. And as any corporate white man knows, pregnancy makes women emotionally unstable, and having kids means they're dividing their loyalties between your bottom line and their offspring.

I am horrified by maternity leave policies, although not for the reasons you seem to. They should apply to both parents, not just one, so that we don't reinforce the cultural stereotype of woman being the only caregivers.

An ethics professor I was listening on the radio the other day actually made a relevant argument specifically in regards to this corporate policy. If we'd divide the post maternity parenting share equally between both parents, there'd be far less of a problem in terms of people temporarily dropping in productivity, as while it's true that both parents would experience a dip in productivity, the overall impact to their respective positions would be lessened quite a bit. Of course, then you'd probably have the companies that only employ the father bitching about it. To which I'd tell them; tough, deal with it.

Incidentally, I'm not exactly sure how this works in the rest of the world; but we do in fact have paternity leave here. Of course, maternity leave lasts 16 weeks while paternity leave lasts only 5 days (or it still lasts only 2 days, I'm not sure, because companies were bitching like little children about adding three *unpaid* days to the paternity leave rules). Apparently in Germany, the parents get 12 months shared between them, with 65% of it paid; which sounds like a good system.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I can't really agree with mandated employer paid maternity/paternity benefits in the first place. Why should somebody be forced to pay somebody else for not doing a service for them? If you sell your labour, why should you be able to force a buyer of labour to pay for it and not get it? I do agree that maternity/paternity benefits should exist, but why should they be paid by employers? That isn't fair to them, and it seems to create an incentive for them to hire those they don't think are as likely to have children.

If we as a society decide that we want parents to get money while not working, because children are the future, and it is good for society, then society as a whole should pay. Benefits like this should be government funded. We should all pay our fair share, not just those who buy labour. Why should the idle rich or wealthy companies that don't hire many employees get away with not paying into this?

Yes, some employers may see a benefit in attracting and retaining productive and skilled employees by offering benefits like paid time off, etc, but that should be their choice. And yes, I find linking healthcare to employment equally nonsensical, unless the job actually endangers the worker (ie, miners, etc)

 

[dystopian]

I do agree that maternity/paternity benefits should exist, but why should they be paid by employers? That isn't fair to them, and it seems to create an incentive for them to hire those they don't think are as likely to have children.

How exactly is it not fair to them? These women make them *money*. Without their employees, companies would not make money. Their employees make them *more* money than they pay their employees (or else those companies wouldn't survive very long-term). Their employees already spend large chunks of their lives working for the company; the least the company could do is act like a decent entity and *help* their employees when they need it, instead of treating them as cogs in the machine. Besides, in many cases its far better for a company to pay for and deal with maternity leave than it is to fire the employee and train up a new employee (even ignoring the horrible effects doing that as a matter of policy would have on PR)

They should be government funded.

Why shouldn't corporations be expected to fulfill social obligations that are perfectly within their means?

 

[Rhea]

(Both options, of course, mean men, older women, and fertile women who wish to remain child-free will pay for the women who choose to take advantage of the benefit).

I'm not seeing what would prevent a child-free woman from getting some eggs frozen, taking the $20K and then choosing to never use the eggs?

Unless the $20K is reserved to be paid out only to the storage and fertilization clinic, in which case this sounds like more of a program to help pay for egg harvesting, storage and IVF so that delay becomes an option for women who otherwise could not access it?

 

[Shadowy Man]

(Both options, of course, mean men, older women, and fertile women who wish to remain child-free will pay for the women who choose to take advantage of the benefit).

I'm not seeing what would prevent a child-free woman from getting some eggs frozen, taking the $20K and then choosing to never use the eggs?

Unless the $20K is reserved to be paid out only to the storage and fertilization clinic, in which case this sounds like more of a program to help pay for egg harvesting, storage and IVF so that delay becomes an option for women who otherwise could not access it?

I didn't read the full article, but I assumed based on the quote in the original post that the $20K was to cover the costs of freezing the eggs. And it said "up to $20K", so it's possible that freezing the eggs costs more than that.

It's clearly a way to convince women to delay having children in order to keep them at work and this may be an attractive option for those women who want to have their career now and their children later and not worry as much about the potential negative effects of delaying. However, it also sends the message that women who want to have children when they're younger are less valuable to the company.

 

[ksen]

People waiting to have kids until they are older are fucking nuts. Raising kids is a job for the young.

I'm in my late to mid-40s and my last kid is turning 18 this year. I see couples my age raising young kids and would want to shoot myself if I had young kids at my age. They are exhausting to raise.