There's nothing in this paragraph that can't apply to men as well.
Children get sick and need a parent to stay home, and it is most often the woman who chooses to do so.
It may often be the woman's choice, but it need not be and it isn't always. My point is that there's no reason to deny a man a benefit that a woman is getting simply because most men won't need or use it. It should be an individual's choice not an assumed position based on the average.
Beyond that, what a man is capable of doing and what most men actually choose to do are not the same thing.
That may be true, but that is not a biological issue. I know that many men have the expectation that their wives will be doing all the childrearing and the housekeeping and there are many women who seem to expect this too and accept that this is their role in a marriage. I surely can't judge ever woman's decisions about choosing their mate, but perhaps women should be less accepting of this and men should be expected to do an equal share of the work.
Shadowy Man, I think we have some confusion here. Please allow me to lay out a few items for consideration.
The only biological issue under consideration is that eggs are limited and have an "expiration date"; sperm cells are not limited and are freshly produced during the lifespan of the man. Thus there is no actual need to freeze sperm, there is only a need to freeze eggs, if delayed childbearing is desired.
There are two distinct social issues in our discussion, which I believe are being inadvertently conflated.
One of these is the gender roles of men and women in child-rearing
from the perspective of family. In this, you and I are in agreement: men
should be expected to take on a larger role in the home, and they
should be expected to take on an equal role in child rearing, outside of breastfeeding. But that is a question for women and men to make between themselves, and a cultural shift that needs to occur at large.
The other issue is that of the disparate pay and career progression that women face
in the workplace. Even when pay scales and time on the job have been normalized, we see persistent slower progression of women in their careers, with fewer women in management and executive positions. In part, this is due to the fact that women face a choice between continued career dedication and family life. The prime period for childbearing is also a key period for upward mobility in careers. Dedicated time on the job during that period from the mid twenties to the mid thirties is critical for career advancement. Thus women are faced with a choice between being dedicated to their careers or having a family. From an employer's perspective, women are more likely to bear children than men are
D). And for married employees who already have children, women are more likely to choose their children over their career when faced with a choice, and in many cases it really is one or the other.
Employers can't insist that male spouses of their female employees pick up the slack around the house. That would be overstepping their role as employer in a profound manner. The most they can do is provide for equal parental leave... and in the case of Apple, offer an alternative that gives some female employees a third option that was previously unavailable to them.
That option does nothing to address the social issue
from the perspective of family roles. But it might address the issue of disparate career advancement.
It might not. There is no guarantee. As has already been mentioned, there are risks. And there's certainly a risk of the gesture being interpreted as Apple pressuring women into not having children. I personally think that pressure already exists, and this is alleviating that pressure. This is how I, as a professional woman, choose to interpret this policy.
