Tech giants have no business in employees’ personal decisions

Last week, tech giant Apple announced that it would seek to adopt a new policy offering to pay for female employees to freeze their eggs as part of their health care packages, something Facebook started this year in an attempt to recruit more women to their male-majority staff.

Lili Scarlet Sedano | Daily Trojan

Though this new procedural coverage seems generous at face value, the implicit message requires closer analysis — and it isn’t pretty.

“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,” Apple said in a statement.

The idea of freezing a woman’s eggs was first proposed as a means to provide cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with a way to combat possible infertility. After the American Society of Reproductive Medicine made the decision to lift the “experimental” label off the procedure in October 2012, demand skyrocketed.

And the reason, of course, is not surprising. By giving women the option to freeze their eggs when they are young and healthy, they are no longer forced to bend to the societal norm of choosing between prioritizing family life over a career. The generous offer in terms of cost is also a perk. Under Facebook’s plan, female employees would be covered for treatments up to $20,000.

Supporters of this move argue that this decision ultimately gives women the best of both worlds — the option to postpone their familial ambitions, if any, in pursuit of furthering their career paths. Though the added benefit appears generous on its face, the implicit message it sends to women in the workforce is less so: Hold off on motherhood instead of your career because you clearly can’t do both.

Anyone who knows the demographics of the tech industry understands that major tech firms — Apple and Facebook included — are predominantly male. In fact, Apple’s most recent statistics, released last August, found that 70 percent of the company’s employees are male, with its leadership roles composed of 72 percent men and their technical positions with 80 percent men. Though the attempt to close Silicon Valley’s gender gap by giving women the choice to stave off their familial goals can be perceived as laudable, the implicit repercussions this decision can have are far more troubling.

The problem arises when this opportunity turns into an expectation, and the expectation turns into a demand; by encouraging women to put motherhood on hold to be able to focus on their careers, these companies begin to imply that women are simply incapable of doing both, especially at the same time. Suddenly, the long-held practice of refusing to hire a woman on the basis that she might decide to have a family transforms into bypassing women for jobs because she won’t take the option of forestalling a family life, should that option be available. Such a stigma is not only archaic, but also inherently detrimental.

Decisions about one’s career and familial aspirations are important and incredibly private. Despite the potential perks that employers can provide to help with this decision-making process, they ultimately have no place in it. Wherever a woman’s focus lies — be it career, family or both — her employer should have no say in it. As well intentioned as this new proposal might be, it fails to recognize that women don’t need to give up a full family life to build a successful career.

Yasmeen Serhan is a junior majoring in international relations. She is also the special projects editor of the Daily Trojan. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Tuesdays.