Female Founder Secrets: Fertility • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#271

Post by TuringTest » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

vbtemp wrote: post #213

dcow wrote: post #116

I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what men do to be their equal. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could structure society in a way such that the value of raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frow…

> I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives There's a lot of sneering and judgment by women, toward women who choose to be a stay at home mom and not have a career.

The value behind that attitude is that it is a problem to think that women are the ones expected to choose staying-at-home, when culturally this expectation should be distributed equally among genders.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#272

Post by frEdmbx » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #241

throw8932894 wrote: post #219

> Startups take much longer than you’d think before they become successful. 90% of startups fail, they NEVER become successful. Gambling on some theoretical future success is just bad advice. Also egg freezing and late age pregnancy is VERY expensive and complicated. Author herself had three miscarriages. I would suggest something else: have children between 18-25, and start self funded company while working at home.…

> I would suggest something else: have children between 18-25 Let's not undersell how hard it is to have kids when just starting out in life, when you generally have less resources, which may mean less stable housing. Couch surfing or staying with good friends for a week or two because of financial hardship problems is doable when you're single or a couple, it's much harder to swing with children unless you have very…

Having children isn't easy. Having children near peak fertility is relatively easier than later. If a woman has the foresight to know that she would like to have a family first, and then work on her career, she could focus on finding a husband who can provide the resources necessary to both have children between 18-25, and support starting a business later.

This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a reason. If someone doesn't want to go this route, they obviously have every right not to.. but they should understand the tradeoff.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#273

Post by jimbokun » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #48

Miner49er wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This advice is likely economically bad though. Capital now is better than capital later. I would think money made early and saved by not having children and invested will end up being much more then what will be spent on a fertility clinic later.

Unfortunately, that is the other side of the coin. Most people who have children at young ages tend to be less well off financially for the rest of their lives than people who wait until late to have children. That is simply because time and principle are the only factors that really matter in building wealth. This difference can also be taken to absurd extremes though. I honestly wonder why single people without chi…

> I honestly wonder why single people without children in my line of work aren't millionaires just based upon the compensation of their day jobs.

I'm not sure that people who never have children necessarily end up with more wealth than people who do have children, due to psychological impacts.

Having a kid can inspire parents to get their shit together and succeed financially and think about the future, compared to a single person just spending on their hobbies and playing video games.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#274

Post by hksh » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

astan wrote: post #67

Your whole blog resonates deeply with me. All this corporate grifting and women's empowerment months will do jack shit until we figure out how to make workplaces and lives more equitable for mothers and allowing for gaps, breaks and destigmatizing time off for parents of both genders. Instead, we talk about how sexism is the biggest problem. Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that…

I agree with much of what you say except that "women have different needs". I would say each person has different needs and to divide into the male/female binary is a fairly restrictive definition of gender as I have come to understand it.

My wife and I have twins a little less than 2 years old, we are both ~35, but we live in rural-ish NH not SV. She has taken the last 2+ years off for the pregnancy and to function as primary caregiver while I continue to work. While I don't feel a need to work (perhaps a "need to project" would be closer) I do feel a need to provide for my kids while being with them as much as possible. As such I have chosen a low-stress, 9-5 SWE role optimizing for family time over career advancement. At least for the foreseeable future.

From what we can tell she seems to be the only woman from her MBA class that has taken so much time off from career to have children. I don't want to speak for my wife but my impression is that she feels torn by desires to have a high-power career and to spend all the time with the kids (though pandemic parenting in NE with no third spaces available means that some days it would be an easy choice). Maybe that is society having an outsize impact on her internal valuation of family rearing, but I am not sure.

The point I am making is that kind of gender bifurcation doesn't fit the mold that I (a cis-gendered, white man) fit so I find it less plausible that a less-represented person would match it either as my "group" [more accurate term requested] has largely set the social norms.

I acknowledge I could be an outlier.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#275

Post by nappy-doo » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #239

I agree completely with the premise that most people don't appreciate just how fleeting fertility can be, but I think rather than freezing eggs, the solution is for people to normalize having children at a younger age and designing work and home life around children existing and even being present in certain work contexts. Obviously freezing your eggs is something that you can do as individual without society's input…

My MIL used to say, "there's a reason that they make mothers young," and it's because kids are exhausting. As a mid-40s male, I can't imagine bringing a child into my life again right now. I would die before 50 from sleep deprivation.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#276

Post by evnc » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #195

smoldesu wrote: post #14

And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline. Our nation-wide workaholism is making family life an increasingly distant fantasy. I've had this discussion with my S/O before, and we've always come to the same conclusion: it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working. That's a difficult place to be in, considering we're both quite passionate about our jobs. It makes me quite de…

> And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline We’re at 7.8 billion humans on this planet and rising. I don’t think we have to worry about the birth rate declining. If anything, we should do everything in our power to lower it as much as we can.

If we lower the birth rate below replacement (roughly 2 children per couple), humanity will die out. This is not a desirable outcome.

If the answer is, "well, the birth rate will never lower that far, because some people are going to keep having children" -- who will those people be? (Do you presume to be able to choose who gets to have children and who does not?)

Aren't those some people then doing a great service, keeping humanity alive? Shouldn't we value their efforts, and give them support?

Also, drastically lowering birth rates has negative effects on demographics and economies (e.g. a population pyramid heavily weighted toward the elderly, without enough young people to do the work of taking care of them, or the productive work of maintaining and improving society generally).

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#277

Post by jimbokun » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #115

PKop wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if human social norms solved this dilemma by division of labor: men bear the brunt of earning capital, while women are freed up to have and raise children. The women's "empowerment" movement in this context can be seen as a cynical ploy by capital to convince women their "power" is tied to earning wages and having a career instead of having a family and they must pursue economic independence over over…

They also promote careerism for men, a notion that doesn't ever seem to come into question. It's true that only women can gestate and breast feed, but after that fatherhood and motherhood are very similar callings. Men could opt out of the capitalist summons to the labor supply just as easily as women, and it shouldn't have to fall entirely on women to choose between "careerism" and "motherhood". If we shifted the no…

> It's true that only women can gestate and breast feed,

If you have multiple children, that can add up to a significant chunk of prime career building years.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#278

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

david-gpu wrote: post #154

austincheney wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, why must the family homemaker necessarily be a woman? If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver. Either way raising children still takes time, energy, and focus that could otherwise pile into something else. While there are differences in general approaches males and females take in raising children I don't think there is any research…

I don't think the GP implied that women must be the caregivers given that he himself would be happy as a stay-at-home dad. I think he was just commenting about a common scenario. > If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver Why equate "ambition" with "desire for a high-paying career"? Somebody who wants to raise a family can also feel ambitious…

[deleted]

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#279

Post by david-gpu » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #255

david-gpu wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody is down voting you, possibly because of the non-gender-neutral language, but I agree with your message: we currently overvalue wealth and job status and undervalue the joy of raising a family. I switched to a 4-day week to find a better work-life balance and couldn't be happier. Time with my kids is more valuable than the salary cut.

I get downvoted continually because I post edgy things like "eating meat is okay" and "you should consider having a family" etc. I'm used to it, comment karma is largely meaningless, and sometimes the rate limiting helps make sure I have composed my thoughts well before responding. Very envious of your 4-day week! I do 6-7 days worth of work in 5 days and it's slowly killing me. Still finding time for the kids someho…

Been there, done that. Burned out. Twice.

Eventually learned that I can't achieve everything I want on every facet of my life. I am not superhuman. The day only has 24 hours.

Something had to give. I was in a position in which I could afford to work less, so that's what I did. Now I'm mediocre at a few things in my life rather than being great at one at the cost of everything else, and I couldn't be happier with that decision.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#280

Post by landryraccoon » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #195

smoldesu wrote: post #14

And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline. Our nation-wide workaholism is making family life an increasingly distant fantasy. I've had this discussion with my S/O before, and we've always come to the same conclusion: it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working. That's a difficult place to be in, considering we're both quite passionate about our jobs. It makes me quite de…

> And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline We’re at 7.8 billion humans on this planet and rising. I don’t think we have to worry about the birth rate declining. If anything, we should do everything in our power to lower it as much as we can.

I don't see how well educated, career oriented people having fewer children will meaningfully reduce the birth rate.

The data I've seen shows that poorer countries and families tend to have a higher birth rate than wealthier countries and families. To abstain from having children as a well educated, well off individual because you want the global population to drop is like not drinking a glass of water when you're thirsty because there's a drought, while farmers consume thousands of acre feet of water. It's not rational.