Women are freezing their eggs because they cannot find similarly successful men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4665018/Women-freezing-eggs-t-man.html

This is interesting. Should women simply have children on their own and raise them themselves? Why are men unable to compete similarly on a professional level to women?

Because there are only so many high paying jobs. Not that it's a bad thing, but men have to compete with twice the number of people they used to for high status jobs. Seems obvious to me why these women may have a hard time finding equally successful men.

This premise is wrong because more people in the workforce means more productivity, more development, and more jobs.

Keep believing that, but all you need to do is look at the workforce participation rate to know that it's a real issue. Only so many general counsel, CIO or CFO jobs to go around. How about this, if you want to date a true financial and career 'equal' then you cannot date any male counterpart that you ever beat out in an interview. Limits the dating pool a bit doesn't it?

Only because men are lagging behind. Look at college attendance rates. This isn't about a 50/50 split- this is about women outperforming men at such a level that it's shocking.

so stupid most MBA, law, and medical programs are still majority male. The myth of there being this glut of women making over say 150k by say 30 vs males isn't true. However it may be true that there are more single women than single men in this category. Just as there are probably more single hot dudes than single hot women at this age as well.

Wrong about law school- majority female. Source December 2016 New York Times article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So men are losers? Didn't need an article to tell me that...

Manless and childless women wail to have their eggs frozen... who is the loser again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So men are losers? Didn't need an article to tell me that...

Manless and childless women wail to have their eggs frozen... who is the loser again?

I guess the men who won't be reproducing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I could presumably freeze my eggs and have the same amount of reproductive freedom as a male, waiting until my 50s to have a kid if I wanted to- or even later.

I'm 40 now with a 7 year old and a 5 year old. No way would I want to be 50 taking care of an infant, regardless of whether it was physically possible to have a baby at that age.

YES. Confusing to me that people would overlook this consideration.

[Anonymous]

I would freeze them!!
As someone who went through IVF (unexplained fertility) to have all my kids I'm going to recommend that my daughters freeze their eggs in their early 20s. Why not? The cost is nominal and I'll be happy to pay it for them.

20 year old eggs have something like a 75% chance of working in IVF (even higher in some clinics).
By age 30 IVF pregnancy success rates fall to about 50%.
By age 40 they're closer to 20%.
By age 42 they're around 10% or often less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would freeze them!!
As someone who went through IVF (unexplained fertility) to have all my kids I'm going to recommend that my daughters freeze their eggs in their early 20s. Why not? The cost is nominal and I'll be happy to pay it for them.

20 year old eggs have something like a 75% chance of working in IVF (even higher in some clinics).
By age 30 IVF pregnancy success rates fall to about 50%.
By age 40 they're closer to 20%.
By age 42 they're around 10% or often less.

nominal cost? I went through IVF too and found the cost staggering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would freeze them!!
As someone who went through IVF (unexplained fertility) to have all my kids I'm going to recommend that my daughters freeze their eggs in their early 20s. Why not? The cost is nominal and I'll be happy to pay it for them.

20 year old eggs have something like a 75% chance of working in IVF (even higher in some clinics).
By age 30 IVF pregnancy success rates fall to about 50%.
By age 40 they're closer to 20%.
By age 42 they're around 10% or often less.

But how well do eggs from a 20-year-old woman fertilize after 20 years in the freezer? There's no way to know that yet, because young women didn't freeze their eggs 20 years ago. But I've heard enough egg freezing horror stories (one of my friends had zero eggs survive thawing!) to be skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would freeze them!!
As someone who went through IVF (unexplained fertility) to have all my kids I'm going to recommend that my daughters freeze their eggs in their early 20s. Why not? The cost is nominal and I'll be happy to pay it for them.

20 year old eggs have something like a 75% chance of working in IVF (even higher in some clinics).
By age 30 IVF pregnancy success rates fall to about 50%.
By age 40 they're closer to 20%.
By age 42 they're around 10% or often less.

those rates are actully high. the numbers I have seen for a live birth at age 40 are around 10%. Otherwise I agree with everyting and went through a similar issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4665018/Women-freezing-eggs-t-man.html

This is interesting. Should women simply have children on their own and raise them themselves? Why are men unable to compete similarly on a professional level to women?

Because there are only so many high paying jobs. Not that it's a bad thing, but men have to compete with twice the number of people they used to for high status jobs. Seems obvious to me why these women may have a hard time finding equally successful men.

This premise is wrong because more people in the workforce means more productivity, more development, and more jobs.

Keep believing that, but all you need to do is look at the workforce participation rate to know that it's a real issue. Only so many general counsel, CIO or CFO jobs to go around. How about this, if you want to date a true financial and career 'equal' then you cannot date any male counterpart that you ever beat out in an interview. Limits the dating pool a bit doesn't it?

Only because men are lagging behind. Look at college attendance rates. This isn't about a 50/50 split- this is about women outperforming men at such a level that it's shocking.

so stupid most MBA, law, and medical programs are still majority male. The myth of there being this glut of women making over say 150k by say 30 vs males isn't true. However it may be true that there are more single women than single men in this category. Just as there are probably more single hot dudes than single hot women at this age as well.

Wrong about law school- majority female. Source December 2016 New York Times article.

First I said most

Second top tier is still majority male.... try again.... sorry you aren't hot enough to land an alpha male lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So men are losers? Didn't need an article to tell me that...

Manless and childless women wail to have their eggs frozen... who is the loser again?

I guess the men who won't be reproducing.

LOL those (professionally) "successful" women won't reproduce, but the (professionally) "unsuccessful" men certainly will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4665018/Women-freezing-eggs-t-man.html

This is interesting. Should women simply have children on their own and raise them themselves? Why are men unable to compete similarly on a professional level to women?

Because there are only so many high paying jobs. Not that it's a bad thing, but men have to compete with twice the number of people they used to for high status jobs. Seems obvious to me why these women may have a hard time finding equally successful men.

This premise is wrong because more people in the workforce means more productivity, more development, and more jobs.

Keep believing that, but all you need to do is look at the workforce participation rate to know that it's a real issue. Only so many general counsel, CIO or CFO jobs to go around. How about this, if you want to date a true financial and career 'equal' then you cannot date any male counterpart that you ever beat out in an interview. Limits the dating pool a bit doesn't it?

Only because men are lagging behind. Look at college attendance rates. This isn't about a 50/50 split- this is about women outperforming men at such a level that it's shocking.

so stupid most MBA, law, and medical programs are still majority male. The myth of there being this glut of women making over say 150k by say 30 vs males isn't true. However it may be true that there are more single women than single men in this category. Just as there are probably more single hot dudes than single hot women at this age as well.

Wrong about law school- majority female. Source December 2016 New York Times article.

First I said most

Second top tier is still majority male.... try again.... sorry you aren't hot enough to land an alpha male lol

oh and bonus the payout after law school has made it not worth if for over 10 years now.... just have to spend any time on DCUM to see all the frustrated lawyers.... aka LAWDCUM again please try and keep up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would freeze them!!
As someone who went through IVF (unexplained fertility) to have all my kids I'm going to recommend that my daughters freeze their eggs in their early 20s.

Um, the smart move, if you want grandkids, is to recommend that you daughters get married in their early 20s and have babies in their late 20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First I said most

Second top tier is still majority male.... try again.... sorry you aren't hot enough to land an alpha male lol

The bad news for you is that the alpha males who do go to law school or business school don't want some annoying 30-something striver in a pantsuit like you. They'll go get an early 20s trophy wife who isn't obsessed with her stupid, meaningless "career".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would freeze them!!
As someone who went through IVF (unexplained fertility) to have all my kids I'm going to recommend that my daughters freeze their eggs in their early 20s. Why not? The cost is nominal and I'll be happy to pay it for them.

20 year old eggs have something like a 75% chance of working in IVF (even higher in some clinics).
By age 30 IVF pregnancy success rates fall to about 50%.
By age 40 they're closer to 20%.
By age 42 they're around 10% or often less.

But how well do eggs from a 20-year-old woman fertilize after 20 years in the freezer? There's no way to know that yet, because young women didn't freeze their eggs 20 years ago. But I've heard enough egg freezing horror stories (one of my friends had zero eggs survive thawing!) to be skeptical.

Different PP. I do think that the egg freezing thing gives people a false sense of security. But, on the other hand, I think there are some women who don't really want to have children; they just want the option. This is similar to men. There are men who won't admit to themselves or others that they don't want kids (and that's why they won't get a vasectomy), but if by 40 or 45, they don't have them, I think it's pretty clear they didn't want them enough to make it happen (or at least try).

This is something that doesn't get discussed much. It's the difference between actually wanting to have children v. wanting to remain fertile/virile. I also think that is at the heart of why so many women suddenly want children at 37, even though it's never been a priority or even at the forefront before that. It's the feeling that a window is closing and the heavy pressure that they're not fulfilling their biological imperative. Usually, once they have them, they, of course, love their children and change the narrative that they always wanted them or that they can't imagine not having them. But the reality is that they probably would've been okay not having them.

Of all of the women I know (including myself), the ones who really wanted to have children prioritized it. There are some women who say they can't find a husband or a man worthy of being a husband, but for them, I think the issue is they don't really want a husband. They want some romanticized version of husband and family that doesn't exist. Again, I suspect that they don't necessarily want a family. But society kind of stigmatizes that attitude.

This is just a theory I have. It applies to men and women. I think there are a lot of fence sitters who hope fate makes a choice for them (i.e., they get pregnant by accident or it just never works out) because if they have regrets, they can tell themselves it's not really their fault.

I just don't believe there aren't enough men who aren't losers. I don't think that's the real issue.

I'm sure I'll get flamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First I said most

Second top tier is still majority male.... try again.... sorry you aren't hot enough to land an alpha male lol

The bad news for you is that the alpha males who do go to law school or business school don't want some annoying 30-something striver in a pantsuit like you. They'll go get an early 20s trophy wife who isn't obsessed with her stupid, meaningless "career".

Maybe for wife #2 or #3. My biglaw colleagues who are on their first marriage are all married to a spouse of similar age, at least the ones I know of. Some of them have SAH or part-time working wives, others have more career-related wives (lawyers, doctors). I don't know any who have an early 20's trophy wife.