I first saw this news tip posted in a secret Facebook group that I am a member of. The group is comprised of about 500 women from all over the country and is a “safe place” to share and discuss articles, op-eds, and news stories pertaining to women’s issues. I was invited by a sorority sister of mine, a girl whom I always looked up to, and one who has very different political beliefs than I do. I was, quite honestly, surprised and honored to be invited to such a group of educated and talented young women. Not to mention, these stories and discussions oftentimes provide me with inspiration for a column. This, obviously, is one of those instances.
After the initial story was posted in the group about an hour prior to this article being published, my jaw dropped. Facebook and Apple are doing WHAT? They’re paying for female employees to freeze their own eggs? How weird. How strange. How…fucked up. While many women in this (incredibly fascinating) group commented on the post singing the praises of Facebook and Apple, something about it irked me. To me, this seems to be the opposite of a progressive, equal workspace. Sure, Apple and Facebook are providing a service to their female employees — a service that, quite honestly, is unheard of when it comes to employee benefits — but at what cost?
Let’s break it down.
Contrary to popular belief, the chances of a woman having a healthy, viable pregnancy begin going down at 27, not 35. The cost of freezing one’s eggs has an upfront fee of about $10,000 depending on your doctor and place of residency. Additionally, there is a “maintenance” cost of $1,000 a year to ensure that your eggs are properly cared for. So, let’s say that I, a 24-year-old woman, work for Facebook and decide to freeze my eggs because I’m not currently seeing anyone and, hey, it’s free. But is it really? Is it really free? Is this a no strings attached back up plan? Or is this a silent understanding that should I, said Facebook employee, go through with this procedure, that I am essentially signing an invisible “I will not have children for at least 15-20 years” contract. Equally, will I be at a disadvantage should I decide not to go through with this very “generous” offer? Personally, it seems like the latter two options.
Obviously, companies cannot discriminate on race, sex, or religion when hiring, but it’s no secret that women are discouraged from asking about maternity leave or childcare policies when interviewing for a position. Such a question puts you on the “mommy path” — and employers don’t want that. They want people who are in it for the long haul, who won’t miss three months of work at a time, who won’t leave at 3pm on a Wednesday because their child has a doctor’s appointment. Hell, I’ve even heard of women taking off their wedding ring before interviewing for a job, because as the saying goes, first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage…and then comes getting passed over for the promotion. Unfortunately, even if we take off our rings and don’t bring up the subject of children, we are still at a disadvantage when it comes to getting a job, as a study at Yale University found that not only are male candidates favored to female candidates, but that on average, even when the candidates are identical on paper, save for the name and gender, the male candidates are offered a salary of $4,000 more a year. And why is that? Because women have children. We leave the workforce. We are seen as flighty, unpredictable, and a threat to stability.
Facebook and Apple, however, found a clever way around that. If they provide the “option” for (read: coerce) female employees to freeze their eggs, then they will no longer be a threat to the company. They will no longer leave. They will work now and maybe have kids later. Everybody wins, right?
Wrong.
When I decide to have children is my decision and at no point in that decision making should my employer come to mind. A company getting financially involved in my reproductive system/rights is wrong. Think I’m being overdramatic? If the employer is paying for the initial process and the “maintenance” fee, then who really owns those eggs? Is it me? Or is it my employer? When the time comes, is it my decision to have children? Or is it my employer’s? It’s too much of a grey area — a grey area that I want no part of.
They say keep the government out of our reproductive system. Well, I say keep your money out of it, too..
[via Mashable]
Boy, some women really can find something wrong with everything. Don’t like it? Don’t work there. Or just don’t freeze your eggs. “Women everywhere should be outraged” is a little over the top.
No kidding. A ton of women complained when Hobby Lobby wouldn’t pay for their birth control. Now Apple and Facebook want to pay for another alternative allowing a woman to manage when she has kids and they complain about that too.
Ok I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that a lot of women aren’t actually upset this. In fact I (and a few other women I talked to about this) think it’s awesome. Most employers cover vasectomies for men, it’s helping cover medical cost not control people and keep them from having children.
That’s what I’m saying! Good for those women for taking advantage of this opportunity. I think it’s good these companies are offering this avenue for women. But I’ve also seen several articles, this one included, and tons of comments on articles that have women bashing Apple/Facebook for this and that’s just ridiculous.
Agreed! If you don’t like it don’t freeze your eggs, they aren’t forcing anyone to freeze their eggs! I guarantee this came about because the cost was brought up by a female employee going through it!
Upset about this*
I hate Catie Warren and this article sucks.
Did I miss the part in there where agreeing to freeze your eggs gave the company the sole discretion as to when you have kids? Maybe it’s less about “coercing” women that want to have kids soon into delaying it, and more about “helping” women who want to focus on their career with a top-tier company and be able to have kids later. You know, like when they decide to have kids.
I fail to see the issue, you could always just NOT take them up on the offer. Simple.
I’m more partial to hard-boiled myself.
I prefer them scrambled, if you catch my drift.
” I’m sorry but someone who describes themselves as living their 21st birthday for the past three years, as the author does, obviously doesn’t have the maturity to discuss the topic of child birth in an adult way.”
Shots fired.
So the issue isn’t that they WILL abuse their power, but there’s a possibility that they COULD?
These companies already attract the type of people who eat/breath/sleep their careers (nap pods and free food at work so you never have to leave), so it wouldn’t surprise me if the type of women who work there/want to work there are the ones who would strongly appreciate this option. You appeal to the type of people you want, and google/Facebook want people who put careers over everything else, male or female.
You should write for the Onion. I got quite a few laughs from this one
Why do you always brag about yourself as a preface to each miserable column?
Become informed on the topic before you start writing. I recommend reading the book Lean In, written by the COO of Facebook before you start putting words in other people’s mouths. If it’s your goal to have a family before you are 30 more power to you, but as a society we should be supporting women who would like to have it all, family and a career. Not everyone wants to have a family and that’s ok, but having the option later is pretty great.
Time out, so you’re upset because Facebook and Apple are presenting women with the option to put off having children? Let me know when they make you sign a contract when you freeze your eggs that says you have to wait 10 years to use those eggs, then we can be outraged together. Until then, don’t worry about, you’ll never work at either place anyway.