Female Founder Secrets: Fertility • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#351

Post by throwaway6734 » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

monoideism wrote: post #337

andrepd wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to sound like an extremist but this is what happens when everything in life is mercantilised. Money becomes king.

It's partly that, but it's partly what the GP comment says: the prevalent idea that true equality of the sexes is for women to become exact copies of men. Since women and men are not exact copies, this causes problems.

Imo it's because there's less social resistance for women to take on the roles of men.

Until men that take on the former roles of women are viewed equivalently in the dating market, it's going to be a much harder slog

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#352

Post by ramzyo » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #341

random5634 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, my mom always rebelled at the feminist push to have women do men's work as the goal (without valuing work women already did). Join the military, kill people etc. I'm 100% for that, but it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids, perhaps the most important thing for society and with INCREDIBLE costs (if done badly) and benefits (if done well) to everyone. What's even more interesting, upvalue work…

> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids Because she already collects a massive amount of utility associated with raising her own children. The economics of paying people to raise their own children doesn't make sense; the externality allocations are completely wrong. I'm sure you can imagine some of the perverse incentives that come into play. A woman benefits from raising her own kids (with an as…

That’s a pretty narrow interpretation of “marriage” and doesn’t track my experience at all.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#353

Post by rantwasp » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #124

dehrmann wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wish we could live in a society where people would not have to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... enjoy life While I do agree, this is where I draw a distinction between "job" and "career." A job is something you do to make money. A career is an end in itself. Balancing a career and parenthood is incredibly hard because they're both large time commitments. Despite what the 90's told women (tho…

I think the initial intent of feminism was that "have it all" meant "here is a buffet of life paths and each individual is free to pick which ones they want in order to live a meaningful life." But somehow that's turned into, "we put all of the life paths on your plate and if you don't eat them all, you're a failure". We went from "you can" to "you must". Maybe there's something fundamental in the nature of esteem an…

offtopic: Hey munificent! Great fan of your books. Keep up the great work!

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#354

Post by leetcrew » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #285

leetcrew wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not intimately familiar with all the different strains of antinatalism, but I think that's kinda the point? an antinatalist would not consider funding existing people's retirements or possibly even the survival of the species to be sufficient justification for creating new conscious beings who cannot consent to their creation.

At which point that philosophy has completely jumped the shark. The premise that the universe is somehow "better" with no conscious life is just silly sophistry.

> The premise that the universe is somehow "better" with no conscious life is just silly sophistry.

meh, no more than all the other moral philosophies. some are more practical than others, but none are more "true" than others.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#355

Post by goatcode » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

Reminder that a few hundred years ago, people typically worked a few months out of the year, and were able to live the whole year. The source(s) of the reason(s) we need to work nearly 5/7 of the year now is one element of why this is even an issue.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#356

Post by klipt » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

ramzyo wrote: post #340

klipt wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. Outside a marriage, mothers get child support. The fact it's not taxed as "pay" is a bonus for mothers, not a downside! It's weird how the myth persists that mothers "not getting paid" a taxable wage is some kind of negative.

> Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. That’s some creative logic. Being a stay at home parent is a full-time job. If the stay at home parent were being paid, they’d...well...be paid. “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child and losing out on wages they would otherwise get at a job that the economy values with a taxable wage.

So you want the husband to explicitly pay his wife a W2 wage to raise their kids, which just means as a couple they pay more taxes and have less money than before?

I don't see the upside.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#357

Post by rcpt » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:33 PM UTC

koverda wrote: post #148

rcpt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other nations where the state provides good childcare women have historically entered the workforce just fine. It's the US (and especially California) that drains everything possible from young families.

Could you elaborate on why California especially?

No school busses, difficult schedules, insane commutes for parents, expensive aftercare, super expensive daycare, super expensive housing. Hell, they used to make kids pay to play sports until the courts struck that down.

Mostly because California has prop 13 -- the $30B per year transfer of wealth from the young or new into the pockets of Native Sons of the Golden West.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#358

Post by twoifbyseat » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:33 PM UTC

ramzyo wrote: post #340

klipt wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. Outside a marriage, mothers get child support. The fact it's not taxed as "pay" is a bonus for mothers, not a downside! It's weird how the myth persists that mothers "not getting paid" a taxable wage is some kind of negative.

> Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. That’s some creative logic. Being a stay at home parent is a full-time job. If the stay at home parent were being paid, they’d...well...be paid. “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child and losing out on wages they would otherwise get at a job that the economy values with a taxable wage.

> “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child

? Having room and board for yourself and your child is nothing if not helpful.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#359

Post by onetimeusename » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:34 PM UTC

retrac wrote: post #312

onetimeusename wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "equitable to mothers" > "actual equality where we acknowledge that women have different needs and desires". I can't see any other meaning besides equality of outcomes split across employees by fertility lines regardless of inputs. I think this is unfair. What do you tell someone who did not take X amount of time off when their outcome is equated with someone who did? Increasing paternity leave for all people doesn…

It's no less fair than me having to pay school taxes when I have no children. Healthy families and adequate children so the population pyramid doesn't implode (more of an issue in other developed countries than North America) is a pressing issue that affects everyone in those societies. We should pay our part of it.

Is that the same issue? Public schools are a public good but compensation/equity/advancement is a private one with private benefits. This isn't an issue of preventing financial collapse but as OP says a matter of "career prospects". The justification for that reason as a public good seems a lot less obvious to me than for public education.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#360

Post by ramzyo » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 8:35 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #356

ramzyo wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. That’s some creative logic. Being a stay at home parent is a full-time job. If the stay at home parent were being paid, they’d...well...be paid. “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child and losing out on wages they would otherwise get at a job that the economy values with a taxable wage.

So you want the husband to explicitly pay his wife a W2 wage to raise their kids, which just means as a couple they pay more taxes and have less money than before? I don't see the upside.

No, you’re right that doesn’t make sense, and I wouldn’t be for that. I think government should expand paid time off for family leave, especially in the US.