Egg Freezing: A Sign Your Workplace Is a Dystopian HellHole
huntgatherlove.com
huntgatherlove.com
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.
That said, I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that maternity leave is a "special privilege" for women. Women are the only ones (so far as I know) who can have children, and we do (I think) want to encourage employees to have them.
Maternity leave isn't a special privilege. It's an acknowledgment that women give birth, and that they also can contribute to a company's success, and that they shouldn't have to choose between the two.
Enough men don't take paternity leave when it's voluntary that it ends up being cheaper for the company to hire men over women.
However, it won't equalise until you have completely broken traditional gender roles.
Until it's completely socially acceptable for men to stay at home and take care of kids, it will still be more optimal to hire men who have a lesser chance of taking paternity leave.
Men should have the right (and should be forced to take it) to the same level of paternity leave as women.
That will instantly level the playing field, and make the first three months of parenthood a pleasure instead of the pain that it is when having to work..
EDIT: my wife just pointed out that this will never work. Unlike women, men can father in parallel..
I'm curious what your underlying ethical/political principle is here.
I can understand the tradeoff can be undesirable, but the tradeoff ought be between wanted money and wanted leave.
Just accept that having children comes with a career penalty and choose what you prefer: kids or career?
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?
Also, I've quit places which leaves them without my services for a lot a lot longer with significantly shorter notice.
No one ever questions my ability to get the job done despite having kids. I also find my children quite a lot more important than work. I have my children for life, I might have a job for 5 years tops.
If you don't have kids why would you even give a shit about climbing the corporate ladder? There's a lot more entertaining shit in the world to do than sit in a chair with a desk looking at a screen.
Sexism isn't a weird term to use when women are discriminated against for having kids, when men are not.
I have heard from a former bosses mouth that women are less productive having kids, despite myself and my former boss having had kids and being quite able to deal with having kids and getting shit done.
There certainly are women who can't set appropriate boundaries just like there are men who always need to rush off to save their children from some emergency. At one job we joked about starting to coach sports so we could take Friday afternoon off because most Fridays one guy was always gone 'coaching basketball'.
The phenomenon you are describing is an entirely different one. The phenomenon of viewing a woman who leaves her kids at home more negatively than a man who does the same would in fact fit the definition of sexism I described. It is also completely unrelated to maternity/paternity leave and the rest of this discussion.
This idea of "100% provable" is also odd (and an impossible standard of proof, even in pure mathematics).
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.
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".
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/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_subst...
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.
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?
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.
There is no rhetorical fallacy here, but the mere misuse of the term sexism by you, and it really doesn't matter how many people make that mistake. While you bring up murder and puppies as an example, you are simply mistaken in the meaning of the word sexism. You make an analogy to murder -- which implies intent -- while a more proper analogy is killing -- which does not. Killing is bad even if the deaths lack malice. Murder is worse than killing, but only when judgement is concerned. If killing is widespread (as sexism is), people care about stopping it more than passing judgement. The problem with sexism is, that unlike killing, those who are not its victims (and sometimes even its victims) are blind to it (although, to be sure, pointing out sexism often feels like judgment -- just as accusation in indirect killing does).
The articles you linked to are irrelevant -- when I say "sexism", I simply mean sexism (which I've even defined), while you insist on a wrong meaning of a word simply because you feel like it. There is little point in arguing about that.
> I do hope to prevent you from imposing your will on those women who behave in ways you disagree with.
Ah, this is where things become interesting, and because people here like their science fiction, let's talk sci-fi. Did the people living in the Matrix choose to live there or didn't know other possibilities existed? Was there liberation coerced or their subjugation, even though the former was quite inconvenience while the latter was as tranquil as slipping into a coma?
If society, over millennia, imbues people with an idea that benefits some and harms others, so much so that the oppressed can't see their oppression, isn't it the moral duty of those who can see outside the matrix to point it out, even if this entails some discomfort? How free is someones choice, if they've been raised to make it? You should know that even during slavery in the US, many slavery supporters claimed that at least some slaves liked their position in society -- which makes sense because they weren't exposed to a different reality.
Now, you should realize that this isn't rhetoric but quite the opposite. It is rhetoric that keeps most of us blind to reality. Once you start seeing how power structures in society work, that they ensure that the powerful stay in power -- even without any conscious, sinister conspiracy behind them, but a constant drip of ideas -- you'll feel like physicians must have felt when germs where discovered, and the true nature of many illnesses was finally truly seen.
The reason why feminism is so often concerned with words and rhetoric is precisely this. Being forced to actively thing about something so seemingly "natural" as language is a good mechanism of curing our blindness. If you live in the matrix, to see it you must question everything -- the more "innocuous" the better. It's so prevalent that it's hard to spot unless you try very hard.
To provide a less politically charged example, is a "sound" "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing" or "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium"? The dictionary provides both of these definitions. It would be pointless to declare one definition "correct" and the other "wrong" if we were discussing a tree falling in the woods, since the important point is the underlying idea. We might call the first one sound[1], the second sound[2], and clearly use these two terms to understand reality: a tree falling in the woods with no one there to listen produces sound[2] but not sound[1].
This is the level of clarification I was seeking with my query. I'm not sure why you and dalke take such strong issue with it.
Now, you should realize that this isn't rhetoric but quite the opposite. It is rhetoric that keeps most of us blind to reality...The reason why feminism is so often concerned with words and rhetoric is precisely this.*
Then why are you arguing so strongly with me when I attempt to get past rhetoric and clarify the underlying concepts? Feminism wishes for multiple different phenomena to be described by the same label in order to help make reality clear?
No. The term "sexism" was first coined by feminists in the late sixties, and they defined its meaning to describe, well, sexism, rather than misogyny (the more overt, malicious, form of sexism, or the analogous to murder in your example), which is a far older word (misogyny appears in Webster's, while sexism doesn't).
There's something else, though, that makes the accepted definition of sexism more "correct", or, at least, more useful, than your one (which is common, but isn't the common usage). Only the accepted definition of sexism describes how women are subjugated by society. Not misogyny, but a well established power structure, precipitated by many means, many of them innocent but certainly far from innocuous (same goes for racism, which is like sexism towards other races while xenophobia is analogous to misogyny). So, we already have a word for your definition, and personally I think that "ism" words are best used to describe social phenomena, or cultural ideas -- not individuals' actions (like murder) whose definition has to do with intent or judgment. "Your" sexism (which is really just misogyny) does not deserve an "ism" word, as it's more an act, or a "crime", than a cultural phenomenon.
True, you are not the only one to use "sexism" colloquially to mean misogyny, but in this case, let's let the meaning of the word be that assigned to it by its inventors, at least while it's still young.
Based on the wikipedia article you linked to, my use of the term appears closer to the original than yours.
None of these descriptions seem to encompass the phenomena of women making choices with different probabilities than men. So I'm pretty sure my definition is closer to the original than yours.
Not that it matters, of course - the underlying concepts are the important point. The words used to describe them are simply conveniences to avoid verbose descriptions of the concepts each time.
It is most certainly not. You're free to study this fascinating topic further, or not -- but you're simply wrong about this. When feminists (who coined the term) say sex, they are very particular to contrast it, and its biological meaning, from gender, which is sex's social construction. So when it says "sex doesn't matter" it means "biology doesn't matter".
> the underlying concepts are the important point.
With that I can agree. And the big problem is that of slavery, or the Matrix, or whatever other analogy you want to pick to describe the extant social structure regardless of intent, and not the misogynic acts performed by individuals. The issue of freezing eggs obviously falls under the category of sexism (or not -- you can argue the claim, but not the careful categorization) -- not misogyny.
In law, the government can either follow a trend, or change the status quo. In this case, changing the status quo and forcing the fathers to take some responsabilities of mothers is the only way. A sexist society doesn't change by itself because the men in power doesn't want it to.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/ec...
In the UK, it is paid by the Government for the first two weeks. The employer is then required to pay the employee on a reduced basis for six weeks before the Government takes-over again for 33 weeks ( edit: at a standard rate not associated with the original salary ).
There is no financial support for the hiring or training of another employee to provide cover during the period of absence.
Source: recent personal experience
also, google offers 6 months of fully paid -- they top up what CA gives you -- maternity leave; I know they offer paternity leave but I don't know details
fb apparently offers 4 months [1]
apple is less generous [2]
[1] http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/parental-leave-pol...
[2] http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/02/memo-apple-hr-head-denise-youn...
What a great company to work for!
Most industrialized nations have stronger restrictions on free speech than America, for example.
Yet, most have a higher quality of life. France (for example) works the fewest hours per week, yet the highest GDP per capita (EDIT: added hour) hour. They get 5 weeks minimum for vacation per year, plus 22 days more if you choose to work more than 35 hours per week!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_emplo...
"Think about it. Nationmaster ranks France as #18 in terms of GDP per capita, at $36,500 per person, yet France works much less than most developed nations. They achieve their high standard of living while working 16% less hours than the average world citizen, and almost 25% than their Asian peers as per UBS. Plus, if you visit France you'll also realize that their actual standard of living is probably much higher than GDP numbers would indicate.
Thus, if one were to divide France's GDP per capita by actual hours worked, you'd probably find that the French are achieving some of the highest returns on work-hours invested. Labor Alpha, if you will.
We can actually calculate this Labor Alpha using statistics from Nation Master.
France has $36,500 GDP/Capita and works 1,453 hours per year. This equates to a GDP/Capita/Hour of $25.10. Americans, on the other hand, have $44,150 GDP/Capita but work 1,792 hours per year. Thus Americans only achieve $24.60 of GDP/Capita/Hour.
This puts the French Labor Alpha at about $0.50 GDP/Capita/Hour over the US. It may sound small at first, but add that up across millions of people, and a few decades. Now you've built a lesson for the rest of the world to learn."
http://www.businessinsider.com/are-the-french-the-most-produ...
Does anyone know if that rate is best compared to U3, U4, U5, or U6?
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11101137/Sick-F...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PP...
If by freedom of expression you mean the right to be a woman and take off her shirt in the same places men can take off their shirt, then no.
But it's distinctly atypical in America -- the fmla only mandates 12 weeks of unpaid leave, and that only for companies with more than 50 employees. CA does provide for 6 weeks at 55% of salary, capped at roughly $1k a week.
So despite your nonsense, Google is doing something quite generous -- and for professionals making, say, $150k it costs them probably on the order of $125k.
Somebody has to pay for it, you know. Do you have your own company? I'd like to see how much you pay for paternity leave.
I don't understand why American-elite are so tax adverse, higher taxes could be used to support a more stable society, and consequently, protect their own wealth.
Did you know that before Obamacare / Bushcare, America spent more on medicaid as a percentage of GDP than Canada did for its entire healthcare system?
Protip: Make your government more efficient, and stop spending more than every other nation on earth combined on arms. Or just watch the cross of iron speech from 60 years ago where Dwight 'bombs away' Einsenhower said your military spending was to use a political term: fucking insane.
Here's a better question since the 'government' is paying for it, what's your top corporate tax rate? IIRC it's 35%, mine is 19%.
In the Americas, Google's paid leave is bested by only Canada and Chile, and tied with Venezuela.
It's better than anything in Africa.
In Asia/Pacific, it ties Iran, and beats everyone else.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't it great that these cutting-edge companies can offer such empowering choices to their workers?
Edit: for fat thumbs and mobile device.
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.
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?
That's a long way of saying I'm already aware of what you're saying. That was the point.
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.
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.