For the past five decades feminists have argued that the
greatest impediment to women’s career success was motherhood. Thus, they told
young women to delay pregnancy as long as possible. If a woman became pregnant
before her feminist matriarchs said was the right time, she needed but have an
abortion—safe, legal and rare.
The argument continued that a fully self-actualized
successful professional woman in her mid-thirties would easily find an
appropriate husband… because, not being a needy clinger, should could be loved
for herself and not for her looks. A good Darwinian could have told her that
she was writing herself out of the marriage market, but feminists would not let
themselves be tied down by male scientists. The fact that female fertility declined
precipitously after age 35 was well known and scrupulously ignored.
While feminists are marching in the streets for reproductive
rights they do not realize that their life plan has deprived many women of the
free choice, to have or not to have children. Reproductive endocrinology has
solved some of the problem, but it is certainly not a foolproof solution.
In the meantime the great feminist minds of Silicon Valley
and elsewhere decided that they could extend a women’s fertility and keep them on the job. They would pay for women to freeze their eggs. Using
frozen eggs a woman could wait to find the perfect husband and could have
children at just about any age.
Companies like Facebook and Apple even offered to pay for
the freezing. Anything to make a good feminist point… and to trick women out of
their fertility.
The poster child for the movement was named Brigitte Adams.
She appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek several years back, to
tout the fact that she had frozen her eggs and was merely awaiting the arrival
of Prince Charming.
As it happened, Prince Charming never arrived, so Adams
decided at the age of 45 to unfreeze her eggs and to have a child. What
followed was tragic. The Washington Post reports:
Brigitte
Adams caused a sensation four years ago when she appeared on the cover of
Bloomberg Businessweek under the headline, “Freeze your eggs, Free your
career.” She was single and blond, a Vassar graduate who spoke fluent Italian,
and was working in tech marketing for a number of prestigious companies. Her
story was one of empowerment, how a new fertility procedure was giving women
more choices, as the magazine noted provocatively, “in the quest to have it
all.”
Adams
remembers feeling a wonderful sense of freedom after she froze her eggs in her
late 30s, despite the $19,000 cost. Her plan was to work a few more years, find
a great guy to marry and still have a house full of her own children.
Things
didn’t turn out the way she hoped.
In early
2017, with her 45th birthday looming and no sign of Mr. Right, she decided to
start a family on her own. She excitedly unfroze the 11 eggs she had stored and
selected a sperm donor.
Two
eggs failed to survive the thawing process. Three more failed to fertilize.
That left six embryos, of which five appeared to be abnormal. The last one was
implanted in her uterus. On the morning of March 7, she got the
devastating news that it, too, had failed.
Adams
was not pregnant, and her chances of carrying her genetic child had just
dropped to near zero. She remembers screaming like “a wild animal,” throwing
books, papers, her laptop — and collapsing to the ground.
“It was
one of the worst days of my life. There were so many emotions. I was sad. I was
angry. I was ashamed,” she said. “I questioned, ‘Why me?’ ‘What did I do
wrong?’
What did she do
wrong? She bought into the feminist life plan, without realizing that biology
and technology had a voice in her decision. She allowed herself to be duped by
an ideology and lost her chance to have a child. She announced on the cover of
Bloomberg Businessweek that she had freed her career. Perhaps she did. But she
paid a price.
Doubtless, you want to know the statistics. Surely, some
women do conceive via frozen eggs.
The Post continues:
On
average, a woman freezing 10 eggs at age 36 has a 30 to 60 percent chance
of having a baby with them, according to published studies. The odds are higher
for younger women, but they drop precipitously for older women. They also go up
with the number of eggs stored (as does the cost). But the chance of success
varies so wildly by individual that reproductive specialists say it’s nearly
impossible to predict the outcome based on aggregate data.
In short, it’s a gamble. It’s also a gamble that a woman
will find an appropriate suitor. Otherwise, she will need to find an
appropriate sperm donor.
Fertility specialists are very clear:
James
A. Grifo, a fertility specialist at NYU Langone Health who is one of the
pioneers of the procedure, calls the whole notion of being able to “control”
your fertility — perpetuated by the media and embraced by feminists —
destructive.
“It’s
total fiction. It’s incorrect,” Grifo said. “Your whole life it’s beaten into
your head that you’re in control and if you can’t have a baby, you blame
yourself. There has to be more dialogue about what women can be responsible for
and what they are not responsible for.”
As for Adams, she is currently pregnant, with a donor egg
and donor sperm. Not for an instant does she or any of the other women quoted
in the story declare that this has anything to do with the feminist life plan.
They blame it all on the fertility industry.
10 comments:
The worldwide total number of live births *ever* from frozen eggs is only in the thousands (> 5,000). Not only is the success rate poor, but few women will ever even attempt the process. And the more a woman needs it (i.e. the older she is), the less likely it will be successful. It's an expensive insurance policy full of false hopes.
I have a fairly unique perspective on pregnancy issues. The amount of people in their 30s spending money on fertility drugs is quite high, in the sense that it is noticeable. These are what I describe as career minded and self centered. And fertility drugs usually means twins. And the twins end up in day care.
Darwin, hard at work.
Funny how some scientists say "Darwin says women should have children in there 20s for maximum fertility" and other scientists say "We now have technology to freeze eggs so you can have your cake and eat it too." or something like that.
And other scientists also said we can control your period with a pill so you can't get pregnant, so you can have sex for pleasure just like men. And yes, yes, other scientists too say "legal abortion is safe" just in case you mess up taking your pills.
Scientists would seem to know nearly everything about everything, if only we knew which ones we should trust.
But Derek is right, ideally you should get statistics of success rate and double check as well since sometimes the person you're talking to isn't a scientist but a marketer.
As I've said before, Feminists hate women. Addendum: They hate babies more.
Always hard boil eggs before you freeze them.
22nd Century caviar for the discerning Progressive Palate. Always thaw in the refrigerator.
Being a feminist means never having to take responsibility for your actions. One has men to blame, companies to blame, and almost everything that exists in life to blame. There is something telling about being forced to face the effects of "its all about me."
I want to know if feminism is so great how come so many women who fell for it are so unhappy?
How many failed theories have to litter the landscape because scientists have been wrong before we begin to question people who have such certitude about "science?" Put 40 scientists in a room and one is liable to get 40 different opinions. That is why it is called science instead of fact. Wisdom does not come from a degree.
Anon @7:09am, there's plenty of criticism of science, both the difficulty in coming to conclusions about complex subjects, and also arrogance that comes from reducing knowledge to what science can talk about.
E.F. Schumacher called his nemesis "Materialistic Scientism", which attempts to reduce all of the world and life into mechanical principles which can be manipulated for our benefit. And he notes there are levels of truth that exist different levels of being, and the scientific method can only really deal with the lowest level of chemistry with complete certainty. (So science can give people more choices, but it can't predict how those choices will help or hinder individuals in their development, like the hard-to-measure concept of wisdom.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_for_the_Perplexed#Critique_of_materialistic_scientism
Damn, she was attractive too! Must have had major major issues that caused her singledom.
Post a Comment