[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Ok so when are these women meant to have children, retirement age?

If they sign the Mega Contract

[Kizzy]

So they have to sign a new contract when they sign up? I see, so my guess is if you fall preggers before a certain age or you leave the company you get no maternity benefits at all.

[Creggle]

How long until this isn't choice? "Freeze yer eggs or find another jerb". Plenty of women would do it just to snag a decent job in the first place, and those who wouldn't want to lose out.

[Niamh.]

Another article on it

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...e-eggs-n225011

This quote

But the emotional and cultural payoff may be more valuable, said Jones: Offering this benefit “can help women be more productive human beings.”

[lostalex]

They don't have to freeze ALL of their eggs, just some of them, they are still allowed and able to have kids the natural way too, I think.

[Livia]

No one's forcing these women to have their eggs frozen. It's an option. Would people rather Microsoft etc. remove the offer? Then if a woman chooses her career over motherhood then she'll have to pay for this herself or run the risk of being "too late" when she wants a family. As for the question of someone falling pregnant mid-contract... I don't know any professional women with good jobs who've been caught out. Contraception is pretty good these days.

Motherhood is probably the noblest profession, right? And there are lots of jobs women can do wonderfully well while raising a healthy, balanced family (I say 'women' because it is mostly the women who take on the childcare role, although not exclusively). Not all jobs though. Sometimes you just can't have it all and it's wrong to expect that you can. In that light, I think companies offering this to their employees are doing them a service.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by lostalex

They don't have to freeze ALL of their eggs, just some of them, they are still allowed and able to have kids the natural way too, I think.

I would imagine if you take up this offer you will have to sign a contract that you will not get pregnant naturally or otherwise for a certain number of years? I can't see the benefit to the company otherwise?

Rather than this being a step forward for women its a step backwards imo, are they asking men to delay fatherhood so they can concentrate on their careers? It's rather antiquated to say that women have responsibility for all the childcare, you see just as many fathers as mothers at sports days, or doing the school run these days. Career minded women can deliver their babies and be back at their desks within weeks and in most cases work up to 2 weeks before the birth. I find it a bit ironic that internet based companies like face book cannot offer flexible working hours/working from home as an alternative to freezing eggs!

[Livia]

Why do some posts on this thread make it sounds like these companies are coercing women into having children late and making them freeze their eggs? Women aren't stupid, and I would imagine professional women least of all. The choice is theirs. Everyone's "imagining" what their contract looks like but no one knows, it's all supposition.

It's all very well giving birth and rushing back to work after having a baby but what happens when the baby's sick or there's some other kind of emergency? When something happens at work and everyone has to stay late or work a weekend? I'll tell you what happens, it's the people with no childcare issues who get to carry those people who need to get home in time for bathtime.

No one is forcing women to do this. Some women pay for this themselves so they can build their career before having a family, some work around it in other ways, so why do some people imagine they are all fools being coerced by big business? It's kind of insulting. And until the people who stay home and care for kids are 50% men, saying "it's not only women who have the kids" is irrelevant.The vast majority of people who stay home are women. You've only got to stand at the school gate to realise that.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Why do some posts on this thread make it sounds like these companies are coercing women into having children late and making them freeze their eggs? Women aren't stupid, and I would imagine professional women least of all. The choice is theirs. Everyone's "imagining" what their contract looks like but no one knows, it's all supposition.

It's all very well giving birth and rushing back to work after having a baby but what happens when the baby's sick or there's some other kind of emergency? When something happens at work and everyone has to stay late or work a weekend? I'll tell you what happens, it's the people with no childcare issues who get to carry those people who need to get home in time for bathtime.

No one is forcing women to do this. Some women pay for this themselves so they can build their career before having a family, some work around it in other ways, so why do some people imagine they are all fools being coerced by big business? It's kind of insulting. And until the people who stay home and care for kids are 50% men, saying "it's not only women who have the kids" is irrelevant.The vast majority of people who stay home are women. You've only got to stand at the school gate to realise that.

Do you actually stand at school gates regularly Livia? I'm not meaning to sound smart by saying that but you would be surprised, I drop my kids to school, my husband collects them, from what I see at the school gates that's a common occurrence among families now a days, I see it with my friends who have kids and from my kids friends parents, most of them are both working and they work the childcare/collecting dropping from school between them

[Cherie]

It's equally insulting to say that career women leave their childless colleagues holding the fort while they rush home. I work in a school, Dads come and pick up their sick children, Dads come to review meetings, yes there are women at the school gate because they stay at home to look after their children, they have put their careers on hold, you do not see the career women at the school gate because they have dropped their children off at the child minders at silly o clock to get into work. Equally if they do attend sports days or otherwise they take it as ANNUAL LEAVE, they do not ask their colleagues to cover their work! That just doesn't happen. One day you might have to leave work early to care for one of your parents, I hope your colleague will understand that you are putting your family first!

[Kizzy]

I am aware nobody is forcing the women to do this however it is possible that if there was a promotion to be offered of the two female candidates the more 'productive human being' would perhaps unfairly have the advantage.
Also my comment earlier relating to contracts didn't mention anything about contraception and it's reliability, a woman may decide to move having children forward for any number of reasons. Also this would be limiting in the amount of children you have, the odds of having a child in later years are reduced drastically especially if you want to have more than one child.

Whether or not the mother is the main caregiver or not is not relevant in this discussion.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Do you actually stand at school gates regularly Livia? I'm not meaning to sound smart by saying that but you would be surprised, I drop my kids to school, my husband collects them, from what I see at the school gates that's a common occurrence among families now a days, I see it with my friends who have kids and from my kids friends parents, most of them are both working and they work the childcare/collecting dropping from school between them

No I don't spend a lot of time at the school gates, but you already know that. However, up until last year I drove past three primary schools every day to get to work and the people dropping off their kids were almost exclusively women. Likewise, I have been to school with my brother to drop my nieces off (my brother stayed at home with the kids while his wife went to work) and he was one of only two or three men dropping off their kids, and he was the only man at playgroup when they were really little. Also, I worked with lots of professional women who have kids and mostly it's their childcare providers who collect their kids and they are also almost exclusively women.

I don't think you can convince me that there's an even split with men and women when it comes to staying home and taking care of the kids, even though my brother was one of those who did just that.

Anyhoo, the crux of this matter as far as I'm concerned is this: if women want to take advantage of this and work for a particular company, then that's their call. I just don't understand why some people think it's a retrograde stop when no one is being forced or coerced into anything. These are professional women we're talking about. They're well able to make up their own minds.

[lostalex]

it's none of your business when the most opportune time to have a child is kizzy. no one debates if it's okay for an older man to father a child. Why are there so many articles about women having children too young, women having children too old, women who stay home, women that work, women women women,

but how many articles do you see about men having children??? none. as if men have nothing to do with the matter.

just another way to blame women for the problems of the world. the majority in power always loves to blame the minority with no power for all of the problems.

[lily.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I heard about this, this morning, it sounds very much like a weird science fiction movie. It seems a bit messed up really

I totally agree. I read this and genuinely thought it was some kind of sick wind-up. I can't believe this is even legal.

[Livia]

Kizzy, you don't decide what's relevant. Who provides care for a child is VERY relevant if you've ever had to work till ten while the one who has the ch ild gets to leave early because they have to put their kid to bed. That makes them, in my opinion, unproductive.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Kizzy, you don't decide what's relevant. Who provides care for a child is VERY relevant if you've ever had to work till ten while the one who has the ch ild gets to leave early because they have to put their kid to bed. That makes them, in my opinion, unproductive.

If you work till ten that's YOUR choice if a working mother has a work/life balance you cant hold her responsible because YOU don't.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

it's none of your business when the most opportune time to have a child is kizzy. no one debates if it's okay for an older man to father a child. Why are there so many articles about women having children too young, women having children too old, women who stay home, women that work, women women women,

but how many articles do you see about men having children??? none. as if men have nothing to do with the matter.

just another way to blame women for the problems of the world. the majority in power always loves to blame the minority with no power for all of the problems.

Seeing as the tread is discussing this then I'll have a say alex thanks.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

No I don't spend a lot of time at the school gates, but you already know that. However, up until last year I drove past three primary schools every day to get to work and the people dropping off their kids were almost exclusively women. Likewise, I have been to school with my brother to drop my nieces off (my brother stayed at home with the kids while his wife went to work) and he was one of only two or three men dropping off their kids, and he was the only man at playgroup when they were really little. Also, I worked with lots of professional women who have kids and mostly it's their childcare providers who collect their kids and they are also almost exclusively women.

I don't think you can convince me that there's an even split with men and women when it comes to staying home and taking care of the kids, even though my brother was one of those who did just that.

Anyhoo, the crux of this matter as far as I'm concerned is this: if women want to take advantage of this and work for a particular company, then that's their call. I just don't understand why some people think it's a retrograde stop when no one is being forced or coerced into anything. These are professional women we're talking about. They're well able to make up their own minds.

As cherie correctly pointed out many of these may be childminders as their mothers are working?..

[lily.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Meh. All sounds a bit selfish, to me. It's an either-or situation, you should choose the high-flying career OR to settle down to cosy family life. The two are inherently incompatible. For both women AND men. Men, with children, who spend their lives in high-flying careers, working longer-than-normal hours, on constant business trips, and then still sat working at home / always available over the phone... are being **** dads when it comes to small children. Many might find that harsh but it's something I truly believe.

If you really want to do both (again, women OR men), have kids YOUNG and start your career path when they're a little bit older.

I've read through all the posts now, and I have to say that I agree most with this one.

I think it is possible to have a family and a job, but there is a line.

I expect most people would agree that if a couple had 12 children it would be quite difficult for them to also both have careers, so by that reasoning, if a couple have really high-powered jobs it would be quite difficult for them to have a family.

I think we live in an age where 'having it all' is expected, and it is just too damn hard in my view. I think men and women need to accept that certain sacrifices have to be made if you are to have a family and be able to balance that with the jobs you both do.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Seeing as the tread is discussing this then I'll have a say alex thanks.

what i meant was, how are you making it better for women? and challenging the status quo/

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

what i meant was, how are you making it better for women? and challenging the status quo/

Me personally?.. The thread is discussing the companies here, I'm stating and basing my opinion on that.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If you work till ten that's YOUR choice if a working mother has a work/life balance you cant hold her responsible because YOU don't.

Don't make this personal, Kizzy.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

As cherie correctly pointed out many of these may be childminders as their mothers are working?..

Yeah... maybe.

And maybe not.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Don't make this personal, Kizzy.

You stated that you personally had been affected by being a childless employee put upon to take the workload from your colleagues with children livia.My comment was not a slight on you in any way.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Kizzy, you don't decide what's relevant. Who provides care for a child is VERY relevant if you've ever had to work till ten while the one who has the ch ild gets to leave early because they have to put their kid to bed. That makes them, in my opinion, unproductive.

But then surely they get paid for whatever hours they do work and you get paid for yours?

Unless you're being forced to work overtime and do other people's jobs? In which case check your job description and pay scale.