Human Capital forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Egg freezing: pro-equity breakthrough or anti-feminist “devil’s deal”?

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 22 Oct 2014, 11:25 AM Agree 0
Apple and Facebook’s offer to freeze their employees’ eggs has divided opinion. Will women be attracted or offended by the perk?
  • Michelle | 22 Oct 2014, 12:56 PM Agree 0
    A totally outrageous proposition. These mega rich companies could be providing onsite professional child minding facilities and flexible work arrangements. Freezing eggs is no guarantee of producing a child some time down the track.
  • Ann-Marie | 22 Oct 2014, 01:31 PM Agree 0
    Interesting topic that I imagine would have a passionate opinion from many. While there are no guarantees that a frozen egg will produce a baby, a woman who has not met her partner in life while she is at the prime age to have have a baby, may see this as an opportunity at motherhood if she meets someone later.

    If this option is in place, it can not be seen as an opportunity to take away a woman's choice to become a parent at a younger age. There are many ways companies can provide flexibility. I will be interested to see others views on this.
  • John | 22 Oct 2014, 01:39 PM Agree 0
    What harm does it do if the offer is there?
  • Phil | 22 Oct 2014, 01:47 PM Agree 0
    I think you're missing the point John
  • Michelle | 22 Oct 2014, 02:30 PM Agree 0
    I'm a woman John - I feel you may be missing the point. I would be pretty disgusted if my employer offered its female employees a painful medical procedure to freeze their eggs so they could delay having a child. This is really not the sort of 'perk' that will win an organisation an employer of choice award for women in Australia any time soon I feel.
  • Catherine Cahill | 22 Oct 2014, 06:16 PM Agree 0
    As a woman, I would have taken up the option when my eggs were younger! It is a nice insurance policy, which is prohibitively expensive, and so something the average woman cannot consider.

    I do not accept that this offer means they are discouraging women from having children. Even if they were, they have no say in when a woman chooses to attempt to start a family!
  • Amanda Rochford | 28 Oct 2014, 10:21 AM Agree 0
    This policy doesnt consider that a man's sperm also loses its genetic integrity as the man ages. When women delay having children it obviously means their partners delay having children too. Cant wait to see how those aging parents deal with the children (who are statistically more likely to have something wrong with them). Plus being pregnant and giving birth in your 40s is a whole different story to being pregnant and giving birth in your 20s.

    There is also the subconscious point that the company only values childless women and that a woman's best thinking and contribution comes before you have children. There is no such assumption for male staff members. That is sexist.

    While this is couched as a choice it wont take much for the expectation to be for women to delay childbirth.

    As a feminist I disagree with the rationale behind this policy because it benefits the business at the expense of womens and childrens health. I dont believe it will be beneficial to women as a group or society as a whole.

Post a reply