Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

femfosec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 770 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#711

Post by mempko »

BobbyJo wrote: post #651
paledot wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wage stagnation has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with the obscenely rich being permitted to get obscenely richer. It's disappointing that your friends have fallen for that lie.

If we took every dollar from all the billionaires in the US we could give everyone around 10k. If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone around 100k. We could do this exactly once, and it would destroy enough wealth (most of this money is in assets, whose value would be destroyed in the process) that the real value you'd get out of that number would be A LOT less. The rich are not the source of…

You are right that most of their wealth is tied up in assets but you don't need to convert their wealth into cash, you can just transfer ownership. Example, take Elon Musks shares in Tesla and just give them to random people. Some of those people may sell, but many won't.

This clearly won't destroy the value of Tesla since they will continue making cars. They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla, and they will continue after Elon leaves Tesla.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#712

Post by darkhorse13 »

izolate wrote: post #11

This is a heartbreaking read, I feel for the author. This is a true case of biology not having kept up with societal progress.

>This is a true case of biology not having kept up with societal progress.

I think you seriously have this backwards. How can biology keep up with societal progress?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#713

Post by hycaria »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #562
hycaria wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am female too and I really don’t relate to this kind of discourse. If you’re really that into high pressure job and grinding the ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a sahm ? You can’t do everything at once. No one is stopping you from raising children but yourself. Many don’t go for the business route and that’s a respectable choice but of course you can’t have it all. If in the end your fer…

I am not a female, but I'm a dad who quit the industry a year ago so when my wife was pregnant with our first child. I think what you're missing is the fact raising a child is something that all human beings are biologically engineered to find overwhelmingly fulfilling, yet office environments are not designed with employee fulfillment (or even basic wellbeing) in mind. Once you become a parent, over time your viewpo…

Some people (even women) are impatient to go back to work because being with a toddler all day everyday isn't fun to everyone. Some people simply enjoy their job a lot. Or because reality takes a toll and you prefer to have a nice house and everything money permits even if that means a few less hours per day with your kid. Or the balance of all of this.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#714

Post by hycaria »

rayiner wrote: post #536
hycaria wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am female too and I really don’t relate to this kind of discourse. If you’re really that into high pressure job and grinding the ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a sahm ? You can’t do everything at once. No one is stopping you from raising children but yourself. Many don’t go for the business route and that’s a respectable choice but of course you can’t have it all. If in the end your fer…

> If you’re really that into high pressure job and grinding the ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a sahm ? You can’t do everything at once. No one is stopping you from raising children but yourself. Many don’t go for the business route and that’s a respectable choice but of course you can’t have it all. If in the end your fertility is more important than your career then have kids without ma…

But you can work and have kids. The problem is the expectation of being on track for (or offered back after years of hiatus) a top career while taking years off to raise childen is unrealistic.

Especially when there are other women (or people actually) looking for the same professionnal success while minimizing the impact of bearing (the only exclusively female element in this matter, note) and raising children on their careers as much as possible.

All I meant is of course you will be penalized for taking years off when some people (even of the same sex and with the same supposed disadvantages) don't.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#715

Post by sokoloff »

mempko wrote: post #711
BobbyJo wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we took every dollar from all the billionaires in the US we could give everyone around 10k. If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone around 100k. We could do this exactly once, and it would destroy enough wealth (most of this money is in assets, whose value would be destroyed in the process) that the real value you'd get out of that number would be A LOT less. The rich are not the source of…

You are right that most of their wealth is tied up in assets but you don't need to convert their wealth into cash, you can just transfer ownership. Example, take Elon Musks shares in Tesla and just give them to random people. Some of those people may sell, but many won't. This clearly won't destroy the value of Tesla since they will continue making cars. They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla, and they will con…

> They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla

Musk became CEO of Tesla in Oct 2008.

As of Sept 10, 2008, Tesla had delivered 27 cars to customers.

That's about as "technically correct and practically wrong" as I've seen.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#716

Post by Nebasuke »

JacobSuperslav wrote: post #505

i don't understand why adoption isn't more popular. besides the obvious shallow reasons of wanting a biological copy of yourself etc.

I don't think this is shallow. It's part of our core human being to try and propagate our genes, and there are good personal reasons for preferring this over adoption as well.

Pregnancy can make it easier to relate to the child before they're born, at least it did for me (as a guy). I have considered adoption, but I do have a fear in the back of my mind that I might struggle to love the child as my own as quickly as I would love a genetic child. Sure this might not be completely rational, but I think a lot of the decisions w.r.t. children are emotional and more value driven rather than rational.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#717

Post by necovek »

RestlessMind wrote: post #630
bradleyjg wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But our society has taken a weird turn. Instead of recognizing the importance of this job, respecting stay-at-home parents and encouraging as many families as possible to invest in the future by taking the best care of their kids, we have effectively destroyed it. I don’t accept the “we” here. Who did what exactly to “destroy” it? And thanks to supply/demand, it's now expected for both spouses to work if you want a r…

It is not just about the absolute income number but also about job security. If I make 200K today but am not guaranteed to make the same number 10-15 years down the line, it is better if my spouse works as well so that there is more chances of at least one of us having a job if other one gets fired or laid off or offshored. In 50's and 60's, one could reliably count on their job and pension for the lifetime, thus all…

Many commenters seem to ignore the fact that lots of quality products produced in the USA at higher cost (higher wages) were exported at those high prices to countries who had a hard job paying for them.

Because of their high prices, competition naturally occurred in those international markets, which led to a downward pressure on USA product prices, and ultimately wages, and job offshoring.

Basically, the global economy is a cycle: the USA was, for the large part, first to benefit by selling "overpriced" (to other countries' standards) products, but markets have pushed those products out, before readmitting them at somewhat reduced prices.

It is to the benefit of the US production for wages and spending power to grow throughout the world, since that leads to increased exports at — now — affordable prices for the world! Heck, it's a tactic employed in both recent crises to get US products to sell (2008 and 2020, USD was at the lowest level compared to eg. EUR for a while): basically, by decreasing the international value of USD, you are increasing the spending power of other countries willing to buy US products.

The only thing uncertain is if we ever get to wage parity throughout the world (unlikely at 100%, but I think effects would be felt even at 50%), will we prosper or fall?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#718

Post by hycaria »

john_moscow wrote: post #571
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…

Here's an unpopular thought: raising kids, motivating them to learn, helping them mature, teaching them your values, helping them get out of bad influence, is a full-time job. It requires education to explain the right things and show good examples. It requires soft skills to be patient and persuasive. It requires people skills to counter out bad influencers. It requires time, dedication and patience. It's not the sa…

It is a full time job but it doesn't really have to be done by the genitors themselves, hence why we generalized childcare.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#719

Post by necovek »

bopbeepboop wrote: post #654
vbtemp wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would have been nice if the popular press had been a little more honest about the biology You are not alone with this sentiment. Some years ago, in my 20s/early 30s-something friend groups, any time the topic of declining female fertility with age came up, it was basically attacked as fake news and a conspiracy by older, conservative family members to get them to breed. Moreover, sex education in school was 110%…

This is super unpopular, but I think young marriages actually give women more autonomy. When you’re 18, marry a 30 year old guy — then take 6 years for undergrad, have three kids along the way, and let him pay for it. Then do graduate school while they grow up. You’ll get out of school, debt free at 30, and already have three kids at school age — ready to be bussed off while you tackle that career. You won’t have to…

Raising 3 kids while at the same time completing undergrad studies in 6 years: I think you are missing some real-life experience to support that conjecture (I see you are adding 2 years on top of the standard 4 year undergrad program, so you are obviously trying).

I imagine you are not a mainly stay-at-home parent who did that, let alone one who went to University at the same time.

But even if you are, some kids are just that much harder to deal with than others (you know, just like some people are).

Now, my wife and I, who started having kids only in their 30s, admit that some of the things would have been much easier if we've only started earlier. But the likelihood of kicking off on a long, shared life path with someone you haven't met intimately, or without knowing yourself intimately (which I think is true for most people at 21, let alone 18), is minimal.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#720

Post by tharne »

hycaria wrote: post #718
john_moscow wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an unpopular thought: raising kids, motivating them to learn, helping them mature, teaching them your values, helping them get out of bad influence, is a full-time job. It requires education to explain the right things and show good examples. It requires soft skills to be patient and persuasive. It requires people skills to counter out bad influencers. It requires time, dedication and patience. It's not the sa…

It is a full time job but it doesn't really have to be done by the genitors themselves, hence why we generalized childcare.

True, but a rather depressing thought, nonetheless. Let's take out loans so we can go to school so we can get a good job so we can pay strangers to raise our children.
Post reply on HN