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.
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.
Israeli law says that men may take paternity leave. My brother-in-law did so when his youngest daughter was born. I wish all countries had such laws.
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.
Actually, if you want "acting in the best interest of the company" to not mean "hire men over women", you want mandatory paternity leave requirements, not just voluntary.
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.
Exactly, by giving women special privileges, it makes it more optimal to just not hire them.
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.
"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?
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) .
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).
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.
...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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm honored that you credit me with the authorship of the term sexism, but, unfortunately, I am not the originator of the concept. There is no sexism[pron] but simply "sexism"[1].
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.
The meaning of a word is defined by usage. You agreed my usage is common. If you look it up in the dictionary, you'll also find that it is in rough agreement with 3 separate and not fully compatible definitions. Sometimes the colloquial definition of a term does not disambiguate things sufficiently - this is a case of that.
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?
> 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.
According to the wikipedia article you linked to, the original meaning of sexism is "judging people by their sex when sex doesn’t matter." See also the description "coming to conclusions about someone’s value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant".
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.
> So I'm pretty sure my definition is closer to the original than yours.
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.
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'.
According to the premises of myhf (the guy I asked the question to), women are discriminated against for being riskier and less productive employees than men. This is because women have special legal privileges that men don't have and will exercise them in order to work less.
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.
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..
Why should people be forced to trade (wanted) money for (unwanted) leave? Is the goal of statistically equal outcomes (as distinguished from equal treatment) so pressing that people should be forced to make undesirable tradeoffs?
I'm curious what your underlying ethical/political principle is here.
I agree that changing paternity leave rules to match maternity leave would reposition employer incentives with little or no improvement to unfair bias. I disagree that we should just accept that a choice must be made between preferring kids or career. We haven't figured out the best system yet, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
The couple should be allocated some large number of days which they can choose to divide between them in any way they want. This is how it works in many scananavian countries, and I think a similar system was recently introduced in the UK too.
Scandinavian societies are far less sexist than the rest of europe and the US. The need for a specific, targeted law is less important.
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.
Maybe Scandinavian government policies are less sexist, but people I've known who've worked in Sweden have told me that Swedish society still seems to be fairly sexist (despite Sweden's progressive reputation)...
> Maternity leave is paid by the government not by the employer in all the countries I heard it exists in.
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.
protip: working for facebook or apple is voluntary
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
Perhaps you don't know that some employers in those God-forsaken socialist countries will offer a “top-up” benefit, which pays a portion of your regular salary in addition to normal maternity/paternity benefits.
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.
They are adverse because your tax rate is to use a legal term: fucking insane.
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.
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.
Googles paid maternity leave is more than people get in Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine in Europe.
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.
> 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!
"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."
One could only dream, though of course, that requires you to get a job in france; they have their own unemployment problems and a quoted 10% unemployment rate [1]. I'm sure it's much higher amongst the youth and minorities.
Does anyone know if that rate is best compared to U3, U4, U5, or U6?
The salary difference between the US and the rest of the industrialized world is so massive, especially at IT giants, that probably even a completely unpaid leave would average out to more money than in, say, France.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This response highlights exactly what I was thinking but leaves out a question I was asking myself. The original author appears to be angry that they are offering this benefit. How did this benefit come about though? My guess, for what it's worth, is that some women working at Facebook or Google were driven enough (perhaps to a fault) that they were willing to go to extremes to ensure they could work now and focus on a family later.
How would it have played out if a particularly vocal employee asked for this benefit and was rejected? New headline, "Facebook says, 'Female Employees Must Choose between Eggs or Career'"
Damned if you do and damn if you don't. Facebook and Google are giving them the freedom to choose. Just because it might be a good business decision doesn't mean it's as cold-blooded and cynical as the author would like to believe.
Edit: Original reply was deleted for whatever reason. My last paragraph is more or less a summary of that same post.
Edit 2: Added a couple works to first paragraph, last sentence - "(perhaps to fault)"
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.