
Egg Freezing: A Sign Your Workplace Is a Dystopian HellHole - rubikscube
http://huntgatherlove.com/content/egg-freezing-sign-your-workplace-dystopian-hellhole
======
reuven
I read about this new benefit over the weekend, and my reaction was extremely
negative. It seems like a great way for companies to force young women to work
harder and put their family plans on hold, in favor of the company. I can
easily imagine a situation in which this benefit will be used to force women
to choose between advancing their careers ("why not freeze your eggs, and have
children later?") and starting or expanding a family.

Part of the problem here would seem to be that the US still lags behind the
rest of the world in maternity leave. If the government were to mandate that
companies let women take off from work, and then return to their jobs without
penalty, it would result in a level playing field, and a sense (among women)
that they don't have to choose.

Actually, that's not entirely true: In Israel, where I live, there is
government-mandated maternity leave with decent benefits, and women still find
it hard to compete. It's not unusual for potential employers to (illegally)
ask women how old they are, when they plan to have children, or how many
children they plan to have. So even with such a benefit in place, things are
still tough for women in the workplace.

I should add that I'm male and the owner of a small (currently 3-person)
company. I have hired women before, and see having children as something to be
encouraged and integrated into the business lifecycle, rather than ignored.

~~~
myhf
Maternity leave makes it more expensive for a company to hire a woman than a
man with equivalent family plans. Paternity leave is also necessary to make
progress against sexism.

~~~
yummyfajitas
"Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term implies some sort of (non-
productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be
productive.

In this situation companies have no particular opinion about women - they only
want employees who will remain productive. Women are simply less productive,
due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias.

Could you explain what definition you are using for "sexism" in your comment?

~~~
pron
That is _not_ what sexism means, but what many people, on HN and elsewhere,
think it means. Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100%
provably biologically justified. The (correct) assumption being that many
biases, especially towards women, are so culturally ingrained that people
aren't conscious of them. Many if not most cases of sexism lack any conscious
malicious intent, and are often even socially acceptable (because most
cultures are sexist) .

~~~
yummyfajitas
The premise of the post by myhf (the one I'm replying to) is that the _law_
and _women 's choices_ (not _biology_ ) that make women less valuable than
men. According to your definition, if this premise is completely correct, it's
still sexism. Am I correctly interpreting your views?

This idea of "100% provable" is also odd (and an impossible standard of proof,
even in pure mathematics).

~~~
pron
That is correct. The law is sexist, and women's choices often are, too, as
they try to meet the biased demands placed on them by a male dominated
society. And that's not my view, but the accepted definition of sexism. You
should look it up - it's a fascinating topic. As to the standard of proof,
that was me trying to simplify things. It's generally safe to assume that any
discrimination against a non-dominant group is sexist/racist until proven
otherwise. Speaking about choices is also often a cover for racism, as some
groups are often nudged - gently or less so - towards making certain choices.

Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way, you stop taking certain
things for granted, and start examining society in a very interesting way.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_...should look it [a definition] up - it 's a fascinating topic...Once you
begin looking at any discrimination this way_

This is the sign of a rhetorical sleight of hand. Previously, I (and as you
noted, "many people, on HN and elsewhere") was using the word "sexism" to
refer to a particular object. Now you say you are using the label of "sexism"
to refer to a totally different object. There is no reason my opinion of an
object should change simply because you've altered the word you use to
describe it.

The only thing that should change is how we interpret myhf's comment, assuming
he defines sexism the same way. Specifically, if he uses "sexism" to refer to
the same innocuous object you do, we should conclude that his comment is
mostly unfounded.

Similarly, if I redefine "murder" to mean "puppy", that shouldn't change your
views on criminology. All it should do is cause you to come running, petting
hand ready, in the event I scream "murder".

~~~
pron
There is nothing innocuous about the correct, and we'll accepted, definition
of sexism, and it is you who complained about the correct usage of the term,
which you deemed "odd". And the meaning you assign to the word is very
problematic. If you want to make analogies, I would choose slavery. Someone
mentions a possible solution in the fight against slavery, and you seem to
think that the fact that slavery is socially accepted, makes the use of the
term offensive in your eyes, because you seem to think that the intent of the
slave holder matters, when, in fact, it is completely inconsequential and
totally irrelevant. Sexism must be fought whether or not it entails "disdain
towards women", or merely social tradition.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You seem to have misconstrued what I attempted to say.

I was confused as to what was even being discussed, hence my request for
clarification. I wasn't sure if the OP was discussing "disdain towards women"
(what I call sexism, henceforth sexism[fajitas]) or "women making different
choices than men" (henceforth sexism[pron]).

I do find sexism[pron] innocuous and I take it you disagree. I do hope to
prevent you from imposing your will on those women who behave in ways you
disagree with. But that belief is completely unrelated to the question of
whether a larger % of people will assume the word "sexism" means
sexism[fajitas] or sexism[pron]. It's based solely on the underlying
properties that sexism represents.

 _Sexism must be fought whether or not it entails "disdain towards women", or
merely social tradition._

This is the exact rhetorical fallacy I'm describing. Let me make the fallacy
obvious:

"Murder must be fought whether or not it entails 'taking the life of another
against their will', or merely 'puppies'."

If you want to make two separate arguments that both of these concepts should
be opposed, do it. But recognize that they are two separate concepts, even if
you use the same word to describe them.

Here are a couple of articles you might find handy:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/)
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_subst...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_substance/)

~~~
dalke
I agree with pron. You wrote "Women are simply less productive, due to exiting
the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias."

The question is, why do they leave the workforce? If it's because of a self-
reinforcing belief that they less valuable solely because they are women, then
it's sexist. If such a belief is widespread and entrenched, it means the
culture is sexist.

Eg, if it's because women want to take a year off after the first child, then
one interpretation is that it's a choice. But the question is, why don't the
men want to take a year off? Is it due to cultural expectations? Is it that
mean get paid more because of a built-in expectation that they will be the
ones supporting the family? If so, there's a sexist cultural component to the
decision.

Hence the more feminist cultures have parental leave. Sweden, where I live,
has paid leave for both parents, and some of the leave can only be taken by
the mother and some only by the father. That doesn't mean that the leave is
split 50-50. More women take time off than men. One interpretation is that
Swedish culture is still sexist. It does bring a smile to my face to see the
number of fathers out with their kids, compared to what I'm used to from the
US.

Or as another example, consider one of the famous cases of sexual
discrimination at work. Quoting from the EEOC, "In Robinson v. Jacksonville
Shipyards, Inc., a shipyard company employed a female welder who was
continually subjected to nude and partially nude pictures posted by her male
co-workers. The men posted these pictures not only in common areas, but also
in places where the victim would have to encounter them, including her tool
box. The men referred to the victim as "baby," "sugar," "momma," and "dear."
In addition, the men wrote obscene graffiti directed at the victim all over
the plant. The men also made numerous suggestive and offensive remarks to the
victim concerning her body and the pictures posted on the walls. The victim
complained about this atmosphere of harassment on a number of occasions, but
the company's supervisory personnel provided little or no assistance. The
court found this conduct violated Title VII because the plaintiff belonged to
a protected category, was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, the
harassment was based on sex, it affected a term or condition of her
employment, and the employer knew or should have known about the harassment
and failed to take remedial action."

If most women exit the workforce in order to avoid harassment caused solely
because of their gender, then it's due to sexist reasons.

Hence why pron and I disagree with your assessment that "Normally the term
[sexist] implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or
bias against believing they will be productive." The sexual harassment in
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little to do with her being
productive or not, but because she was a woman. I have little doubt that being
the most productive person in the group would still have resulted in sexist
behavior, and in any case if she were not appropriately productive she would
not have been promoted to first-class welder.

Pron wrote "Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100%
provably biologically justified." Such a definition is in close agreement with
the EEOC definition of discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace.
(They aren't the same; I assume that "100% provably biologically justified" is
for wet nurses and surrogate mothers, while the EEOC allows a wider range of
'bona fide' reasons to discriminate on the basis of sex, like only hiring men
as Chippendale dancers.)

Your definition is not, which leads to the strange observation that you must
think that some forms of sexual discrimination which are due to the victim's
gender are not actually sexist.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The sexual harassment in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little
to do with her being productive or not, but because she was a woman._

This certainly qualifies as "some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste
for women", and hence qualifies as sexism[fajitas]. In contrast, women exiting
the workforce due to a desire to be viewed more positively by others (i.e.
"cultural expectations") is sexism[pron] but not sexism[fajitas].

I don't know why you and pron are devoting so much effort to arguing for a
particular definition. Apart from making it easier to fool people by
fallaciously conflating sexism[fajitas] and sexism[pron], which I'm sure you
aren't trying to do, why argue over semantics at all?

~~~
dalke
You are the one interested in 'arguing for a particular definition'. You
started this branch with: "Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term
implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias
against believing they will be productive.

Hence you need to answer the question for yourself. What are you spending so
much time arguing for a particular definition?

My point, which you have not observed, is that sexism is independent of
productivity, and independent of specifically a 'distaste for women'. Indeed,
using 'productivity' as part of your explanation makes it wrong.

It is sexist to hire only women as nurses, elementary school teachers, and
secretaries. The sexism does not arise from any particular "distaste for
women." To the contrary, some people believe that women are innately better
for, say, caregiver positions than men. This is a sexist viewpoint with no
factual underpinnings.

Your definition does not encompass that meaning, so must be incorrect.

------
goombastic
Spot on.

When companies indirectly demand that you put your personal life on hold for
them, you know they have gone too far. What next? Employment contracts that
stipulate no pregnancy because they offer egg freezing?

This kind of contract creep and rights erosion is already happening for things
like non-compete agreements where employees sign off the right to get gainful
employment elsewhere when it makes sense to do so. It just feels like slavery
is creeping back up on us.

We live about 80-90 years, I don't think the present culture of slaving your
ass off for an app while missing out on all of life is worth it.

~~~
GolfyMcG
Could you please find somewhere that includes "companies indirectly demanding
that you put your personal life on hold for them" in writing? I might be
missing it but appears they just have the option to do this procedure.

~~~
goombastic
Wont be long before they mandate it.

------
jonchang
So Facebook is paying for egg freezing to discourage young, productive
employees from starting a family. But then it also offers 4 months paid
paternal and maternal leave, as well as a $4k cash bonus to new parents, and
subsidized childcare. Seems like a bad strategy on their part if that's their
ultimate goal.

~~~
kashkhan
If the freezing option is available, the system will tag the women who start
families as not seriously committed to the job. That's the real intent.

In my previous job the manager liked to say that he needed to find out who of
us were the chickens and who were the pigs. That is to make breakfast
breakfast the chicken contributes and pig commits. Anything less than full
commitment results in retribution from the company.

~~~
marak830
How have we gone from an employment systerm where you are performing an action
either unable(due to time or skills) or unwilling todo in return for money, to
a system of slaving yourself for a company?

Id almost understand from a business poibt of view (which i have been in for
the record), but also the people you are hiring are humans, and have a life to
live and are trading one commodity for another (their time, your required
work).

Now the article doesnt specificly target this(i am going off on a tangent i
realise), but the amount of, disconnectrd with reality(for want of a better
term) lately strikes me a lot, (also puts me atop my high horse as it were).

TLDR: Why are we treating staff as a commodity, not a valuable resource while
realising it might not be forever and that they also have a life to live.

------
raquo
Having children when it's least risky (before 30) should be possible without
career suicide. To accomplish that, government must mandate more generous
maternity leave policies. Companies aren't going to be nice by themselves.
They have competitors to undercut and work to be done.

~~~
fleitz
It is, I had kids at 22.

Protip: Don't work at companies where they can't get their shit together
enough to accomplish a days work in 8 hours, preferably 6.

~~~
raquo
I'm not very familiar with mandated maternity leave rules in the US, but I
believe it's less generous than in other developed countries, similar to how
vacation time is not mandated in the US. For reference, mandated minimum in
the EU is 4 weeks of paid vacation per year.

What I'm saying is, good for you that you found a decent employer, but most
employers are not that nice, and have no reason to be, given current
regulations.

~~~
fleitz
I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with Henry Ford.

Also, there are tonnes of stupid companies in Vancouver that want you to work
insane hours, by law they don't even have to pay the tech industry overtime,
yet every company that tries to pull this shit ends up with the shittiest
developers imaginable.

~~~
raquo
What about Henry Ford? Capitalist ideology in general, or something relevant
to maternity leaves?

Your Vancouver companies story just shows why such benefits must be mandated.
Then "shittiest developers" wouldn't be a problem, because the benefits
they're apparently flocking to would be the same everywhere.

------
notacoward
If somebody developed a drug that allowed people to go without sleep
indefinitely, without immediate cognitive impairment, these companies would
offer that too. It would be "voluntary" of course, but people who went without
would have a hard time advancing or even getting good reviews when they're
compared vs. the sleepless. Then we'd probably hear ten years down the road
about how the companies were quietly finding excuses to let people go before
the long-term health effects kicked in.

Isn't it great that these cutting-edge companies can offer such empowering
choices to their workers?

~~~
ASneakyFox
I think you're the only person who didn't incorrectly identify the egg
freezing thing as sexist.

------
marak830
Mandate that men as well as women get x amount of time off for the birth of a
child. No more negative effect for women vs men in this regard( and personally
i dont see any reason for a sex based bias for hiring. At all).

Edit: for fat thumbs and mobile device.

------
jeangenie
Remarkably lucid analysis of one potential motive behind such programs.

To play devil's advocate, programs like this could arguably lead to higher
earning power for women as they get older by keeping them engaged in
competitive labor markets for longer periods (years, potentially more than a
decade) without gaps necessitated by childbirth. It's totally plausible this
is a confounding variable in the gender wage gap phenomenon.

This isn't an endorsement of the argument but a sleazy person could easily
mount that defense and immediately have a parade thrown in their honor.

~~~
fleitz
Which wage gap? The 30% one from 30 years ago that doesn't account for job
type?

The 2% one from a few years ago that accounts for job type?

Or the -2% from last year that shows that women under 30 actually make more
than men when you account for job type?

~~~
jeangenie
You are arguing with the facetious reasoning in a cynical and hypothetical
example of a perverse argument for a program I acknowledge I disagree with.

That's a long way of saying I'm already aware of what you're saying. That was
the point.

------
brandonmenc
It's not like they're offering egg freezing _in lieu_ of maternity leave, of
which Apple offers around 5 months.

~~~
x0x0
Apple's benefits appear not to be as generous as google's; most of that leave
is unpaid according to [http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-
denise-youn...](http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-young-
smith-announces-major-enhancements-to-employee-benefits/)

------
anonymoushn
I recently learned that a certain tech company will delay your vesting while
you are on maternity leave.

~~~
x0x0
Why should you vest when you aren't working?

~~~
anonymoushn
Is this a common practice?

~~~
x0x0
at all companies I've worked for, vesting freezes during leaves of absence

I'm also not sure if I can elucidate exactly why, but while I think leave --
and paid leave for medical emergencies or parental leave -- is great,
something about a coworker peacing out for 3-6 months and vesting stock while
I'm at work busting my ass would really bother me.

------
throwack
This is actually a smart solution to a huge biological problem.

1) Women have huge downtimes in their child-rearing years. This equates as
women being more expensive for the same amount of work for that (short) period
of time. This cannot be ignored.

2) Companies wont hire more expensive people just of good will if not forced
to do so.

3) Companies won't hire women after child-rearing age. Also they won't hire
old men, because they are more expensive and work less. No sexism here, we all
get fucked equally.

4) Playing field cannot be made equal for both sexes. Men cannot be given the
same paternity leave rights as women, because a man can easily abuse the
paternity leave by simply fathering childrens very often, or claiming a child
is theirs, something a woman cannot easily do as a pregnancy is very hard to
fake. Maybe Google can do it, or Facebook. But think of a blue-collar factory.
Can't do it.

You can protest for social justice all you want. It won't happen anytime soon.

------
swartkrans
I flagged this article not because of the actual article, but because of the
discussion here which has turned pretty negative and sordid. The anti-american
comments and politics are a huge turn off.

------
mikepalmer
How about difficult teenagers? Can we freeze them until we have time to deal
with them??

