Posted on 10/23/2014 7:15:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The next frontier of feminism isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Last week, NBC News reported that Facebook and Apple are adding a rather pricey benefit to their health-care packages in order to attract and retain female employees: up to $20,000 in egg-freezing coverage, which can be used for non-medical reasons. Currently offered to Facebook employees as a surrogacy benefit and being rolled out as a fertility benefit for Apple employees starting in January, egg freezing may seem at first glance like just another line item on the list of perks employees of Silicon Valley enjoy.
But women who code should be warier of complimentary cryopreservation than they are of techtopia’s other famous perks: kitchens stocked with unlimited snacks, “baby cash” to help expectant parents prepare for little ones, and even some of the other fertility benefits that both companies offer employees. When it comes to egg freezing, Facebook and Apple employees, as well as women at large, would be wise to err on the side of caution.
Although some commentators are hailing egg freezing as the next frontier of feminism — a new kind of “birth control” that allows women to silence the ticking of their biological clocks while freeing them up to pursue their careers and retain their fertility — there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical.
First used in the 1980s to enable women with cancer to preserve healthy eggs before undergoing chemotherapy, in recent years egg freezing has become a back-up plan for some women who have delayed childbearing because they haven’t found the right partner. But freezing one’s eggs as a career move — a plan A, rather than a plan B — is a newer trend. Anne-Marie Slaughter alluded to it back in 2012 in her widely read Atlantic piece, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” writing that
The way our work culture is oriented today, I recommend establishing yourself in your career first but still trying to have kids before you are 35 — or else freeze your eggs, whether you are married or not.
It’s a strategy that’s increasingly appealing to many women. In a 2013 Cosmopolitan survey, almost 50 percent of respondents said they’d consider freezing their eggs, and 62 percent said that career would be a factor in that decision (more specifically, “so a baby doesn’t derail my career in my 20s and 30s”). In August, the New York Post reported on an “egg-freezing party” sponsored by the company EggBanxx, which targeted professional women who want to take their fertility into their “own hands.”
The general idea is this: Focus on building your career now; focus on building your family later. You can have it all, and on your own terms, too. “We want to empower women at Apple to do the best work of their lives as they care for loved ones and raise their families,” a statement from the company says. But, as Bloomberg View’s Megan McArdle puts it:
Is all this egg freezing actually going to expand the choices of most women who will use it, or will it just be an expensive way to choose career over family without realizing that you’re making that choice?
In other words, is this anything more than corporate America nudging women to choose in a certain way? Is this what “leaning in” looks like now?
Whatever the intentions of Facebook and Apple, women should know that egg-freezing is a relatively new technology and a risky one at that: The American Society of Reproductive Medicine only lifted its “experimental” designation for the procedure in 2012. Here’s how it works: A woman takes hormones to hyper-stimulate her ovaries, causing them to produce multiple eggs at a time, rather than the single egg normally released in a menstrual cycle. When the eggs are deemed ready (usually in about two weeks), the woman undergoes a surgical procedure in which the eggs are retrieved. The eggs are then frozen, using either the slow-freeze method or vitrification, and stored. It generally takes two rounds of treatment to gather the optimal number of eggs (about 20), and each round costs up to $10,000. Then, there’s the additional cost of storing the eggs (upwards of $500 per year) and the cost of in vitro fertilization treatments and embryo implantation when (or if) the time comes.
Freezing their eggs is prohibitively expensive for most women — which is why Facebook’s and Apple’s offering to cover it is no small thing — but even if it were free, it wouldn’t be a good deal for most women. The success rate for the procedure is very low: According to a 2013 report from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, cited by Jennifer Lahl of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, when a woman freezes her eggs through vitrification at age 30, there’s only a 13.2 percent chance that an embryo will implant; when a woman freezes at 40, there’s only an 8.9 percent chance. There are also medical risks from the hormones used in the procedure, such as Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome and cancer, but those are risks that many women are comfortable taking. The more serious consideration is the effectiveness rate.
According to The Atlantic’s Megan Garber, the fact that Facebook and Apple are offering egg freezing as a benefit indicates that the procedure has reached a new kind of cultural normalcy. “These offerings are bureaucratic changes,” she writes, “that also show us where we are, and where we’re headed, together.”
If she’s right, we should consider if it’s where we want to be headed. Should our culture be encouraging women to delay motherhood in the service of career, or should it be focused on creating more family-friendly work policies instead?
Biology can’t always be beaten. Infertility can be heartbreaking for couples wanting to start families; to risk it to climb the corporate ladder seems foolish. Employees of Facebook and Apple should question if the benefits of their new benefit are worth the potential costs — physically, professionally, and emotionally. Life is full of trade-offs, and we’d be better off admitting that and giving up the illusion that women (or men for that matter) can “have it all,” that we can control every aspect of our bodies and our lives. Like many promises of feminism, I’m afraid that this one too may ring hollow: Motherhood deferred may lead many women straight for the devastation they think they’re protecting themselves from.
— Madison V. Peace is the former assistant to the editor at National Review. She works in non-profit development, freelance writes, and is an editor for In Earnest Mag.
Corporate life is way over rated...freezing eggs to climb the corporate ladder is the ultimate in self centeredness...what...you going to make a baby when you are 50? We are not designed to be mothers at that age...for a reason....
I happen to know that, even as a male, that your prime “career building” years are the same years as those you can be energetic enough to keep up with kids.
These women waiting until their 40’s or 50’s are headed for a huge tired out heartbreak.
Have them young. The Bible doesn’t mention this bit of advice for nothing.
More likely reason is no one wants to marry them.
Yes, the biology gets in the way doesn’t it?
The prime fertility of both males and females is when then they are young.
Fertility in both men and women declines as they get older.
There is both the issue of having the energy to keep up with young children, and the issue of your physical capabilities of conceiving children.
Maybe all of this may make us see that traditional families, with a stay at home mother, make sense in ways which people haven’t thought about. Maybe it makes sense for mothers to have children in their 20s, while her husband goes out and works hard in a career to support the family.
I’ve heard so often of people waiting to have children until some goal is reached, or some optimal time in their lives happens.
Yup...at around age 44 I became an instant grandmother to 4 (son married DIL who already had 3 kids...they added one more)...it was exhausting...could not imagine being a parent at that age
Sounds a little like the beginning of the movie Idiocracy.
Psalm 127 gives us direction. I did not know nor heed this, now I’m a tired older daddy...
Psalm 127
3 Lo, children are a heritage of Jehovah; And the fruit of the womb is his reward.
4 As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, So are the children of youth.
5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: They shall not be put to shame, When they speak with their enemies in the gate.
When I taught Personnel Management, one class session was devoted to managing your own career (if you don't manage your own career, someone else will manage it for you and you might not like it). I would advise the women in my class, imitate Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi: have your family first, then become Prime Minister.
Of course, women’s magazines will never talk about Sarah Palin as a role model.
Because those magazines are part of the liberal media establishment, they can’t acknowledge that Sarah truly has it all.
Sarah has it all, because she rose to the top of her chosen career field, and has a wonderful husband and wonderful family life, all at the same time.
In the early days of our country, women would get married in their late teens and begin their family. If they were healthy they would have a baby at least every other year until their middle 40s. That is how a fruitful country does it.
To demand that you delay having children until your late 30s or 40s via surgical intervention doesn’t sound like family friendliness.
A better change is eliminating the expectation that you have to work 60+ hours to be considered dedicated to work. Or that more hours equals more productivity or greater ability.
I had to face some real idiots when pregnant at 25 with my first child in the tech field. The guys generally had no problem except “for the love of God, do NOT throw up in the clean room”.
The educated women, the feminists who were in their 30s and 40s, acted as if I were too young. The argument that I’d been married several years already was no help, it was as if I were compounding the matter by marrying “young”. It was funny asking a few of them if/when they’d ever have kids, because at ten years older, they were running out of time. While one woman did have children at 38, 39 and 42, that is the very rare exception.
The women on the production line though, in their 50s and older, do electronic assembly were generally very supportive. They’d typically had kids at 20, 25, 30 and so forth. To them, my decisions and life schedule were normal.
Too many feminists saying “have it all” pretty much mean “except kids” or “single trophy child”.
Also 2/3 child mortality rates.
Not necessarily. I do genealogical searches and I am amazed at the number of families during that time who would easily have eight to twelve children, most of which grew to adulthood.
Exactly. My kids were grown up and out of the house before I turned 50 (just a couple years ago). Can't imagine starting out now - even if I was in my mid 40s. Raising children is a younger person's job in my opinion. Besides, what child wants to be raised by cranky, grouchy middle-aged parents? I know a few parents who had children in middle age and I don't think it worked out too well for the kids.
On top of that, women who are "career-minded" aren't going to suddenly become stay-at-home "Donna Reed" types in middle age.
If they were healthy and they nursed their own children including nighttime breastfeeding, they would have a baby approx. every 2-3 years until their middle 40s. That is how a fruitful country that preserves healthy child-spacing, low infant mortality and vital mother-child bonding does it.
I also do a LOT of genealogy. When women married a second time it was usually because the first husband died in a work-related death or as a soldier.
In contrast, many women died in childbirth. Having younger siblings always created the risk that the earlier children would lose their mother. Many times widowers left with young children married a second time to have someone raise the first batch, and also to create a few more.
Of course, both sexes die of disease. In any case, bIology dictates it is far more common for men to have lots of children, and often well past 50.
When women have children late in life they rob their child of a mother and their children of a grandmother. So, while a women “has it all” their children get nothing. Greedy, self-centered, liberals, but I repeat myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.