The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her • Hacker News Board

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#21

Post by 1234the1234 » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:44 PM UTC

bkrausz wrote: post #8

1234the1234 wrote: post #5

The problem is instead that to make the asset class decide we're worth their investment, we can't have families or pretty much anything else beyond providing them returns to support their lifestyle. Good grief. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates ripped all of you guys off soooo bad and it's like none of you get it. 80k at 80 hours a week is less than someone makes in a supermarket. Suckers, all of you.

Actually, that works out to $20/hr, which would be pretty good for a supermarket salary.

Actually that's a pretty typical supermarket salary if you've been there for a while. Scary you don't know that.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#22

Post by Tichy » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:44 PM UTC

I'm sorry but to me it sounds like a lot of bla bla about how their startup is all about work life balance, and a small footnote addressing the real "problem": "yeah, I have planned for that".

It's crazy to assume that having twins won't have any impact whatsoever. Even if she says she will hire full time help. Is that a 100% certainty? Or just a 70% certainty or whatever? Even if she is 100% determined now to have full time help, she might change her mind once the babies are there (nobody knows what it really feels like before they have their own kids). Even with full time help, I suppose either she won't be breastfeeding or it will be a lot of hassle.

So while I won't say it is impossible to work at the same time (although personally I can't see how, I have a lot of respect for anyone with twins to begin with...), there still is some distraction. Seems to me it should be the right of a VC to take that into account.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#23

Post by Tichy » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:45 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #6

victork2 wrote: post #2

Interesting point. Hard to discuss too, because as always with women-related issues the heat is pretty high. However, let's play devil's advocate and extend it to the man's case too. If I put myself in the role of a VC I would think twice about hiring anybody who's going to have children soon. Children, from what I gathered, are emotionally and physically draining for both parents. If you add up the challenges of hav…

What point do you draw the line? Say a woman entrepreneur got married a year ago and it's getting to be 'about that time'. The inlaws are asking when they're going to hear the patter of tiny feet? Or what if you hear a couple saying 'they're trying for a child'? Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. It rapidly turns into sexism. So…

I don't think it is sexism at all to take basic statistics about people's lives into account.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#24

Post by jlarocco » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:45 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #6

victork2 wrote: post #2

Interesting point. Hard to discuss too, because as always with women-related issues the heat is pretty high. However, let's play devil's advocate and extend it to the man's case too. If I put myself in the role of a VC I would think twice about hiring anybody who's going to have children soon. Children, from what I gathered, are emotionally and physically draining for both parents. If you add up the challenges of hav…

What point do you draw the line? Say a woman entrepreneur got married a year ago and it's getting to be 'about that time'. The inlaws are asking when they're going to hear the patter of tiny feet? Or what if you hear a couple saying 'they're trying for a child'? Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. It rapidly turns into sexism. So…

> The point is that she thinks she can handle it, she thinks her team can handle the slack, she's putting her ass on the line. Fair enough, go for it.

There's no obligation for anybody else to put their ass on the line along with her.

If she thinks she can do it, then more power to her.

But if I think she's unlikely to succeed, she's not getting my money, pregnant or not.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#25

Post by 1234the1234 » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:46 PM UTC

bkrausz wrote: post #8

1234the1234 wrote: post #5

The problem is instead that to make the asset class decide we're worth their investment, we can't have families or pretty much anything else beyond providing them returns to support their lifestyle. Good grief. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates ripped all of you guys off soooo bad and it's like none of you get it. 80k at 80 hours a week is less than someone makes in a supermarket. Suckers, all of you.

Actually, that works out to $20/hr, which would be pretty good for a supermarket salary.

Don't forget that in a supermarket there are actually labor laws so you get 1.5 for those extra 40 a week.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#26

Post by Tichy » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:51 PM UTC

hudibras wrote: post #16

I'm quite sure that most people in the Valley-VC-feedback-loop have no idea how they appear to the rest of America. Someone doubting another person's ability because she's a woman in a public blog, and then that woman calmly writing a public response, and then commenters here agreeing with the VC--it's like you guys are on another planet, one that mirrors 19th-century society.

Not her ability because she is a woman, but because she is pregnant. In what enlightened part of the world would that not plant a seed of doubt in people's minds?

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#27

Post by reso » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:52 PM UTC

quackingduck wrote: post #10

Um. The headline here says "The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her" but the article talks about a VC that did fund her though expressed his doubts. Also he's one of "thirty plus" investors. Both articles were written a month ago and the company she founded has already shut down: http://blog.profounder.com/2012/02/17/profounder-shutting-do... However I'm sure Forbes and Business Insider are very grateful for the ad impressions.

Actually, it was written a year ago, 04.21.11.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#28

Post by 1234the1234 » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:52 PM UTC

bkrausz wrote: post #8

1234the1234 wrote: post #5

The problem is instead that to make the asset class decide we're worth their investment, we can't have families or pretty much anything else beyond providing them returns to support their lifestyle. Good grief. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates ripped all of you guys off soooo bad and it's like none of you get it. 80k at 80 hours a week is less than someone makes in a supermarket. Suckers, all of you.

Actually, that works out to $20/hr, which would be pretty good for a supermarket salary.

When I worked at Wal-Mart the old timers(+5 years) typically made between 14 and 18 and hour. At Wal-Mart. Yes. One more time. Wal-Mart.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#29

Post by rwallace » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:53 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #17

mattmanser wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What point do you draw the line? Say a woman entrepreneur got married a year ago and it's getting to be 'about that time'. The inlaws are asking when they're going to hear the patter of tiny feet? Or what if you hear a couple saying 'they're trying for a child'? Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. It rapidly turns into sexism. So…

Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. The only difference is that with a hiring decision, the law demands the hiring manager should ignore the risks to the business. In aggregate, this is a transfer of wealth from shareholders to pregnant women (in practice, childless women are also harmed [1]). What right do you have to judge? The…

> The VC has not only the right to determine how his fund's money is spent, but also the responsibility to do so in order to maximize returns.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that societies that tolerate an ethos that maximizes return on financial capital at the cost of burning human capital, are going to end up in evolution's recycle bin, to be replaced by societies that don't. And part of the point of ethics is to find solutions less cruel and drastic than waiting for evolution to solve problems for us.

Re: The Pregnant Entrepreneur And The VC Who Wouldn't Fund Her

#30

Post by Tichy » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:53 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #18

grannyg00se wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

victork2 mentioned "anybody" having children and "both parents". I think it's clear that anybody who will have to deal with a new baby is going to be under additional stress. And the party becoming pregnant is going to be under even more stress. It is reasonable for those stress factors to be taken into consideration if you're making a decision about a person's likelihood for success. You can't simply ignore those fa…

> victork2 mentioned "anybody" having children and "both parents". That's great, but the practical reality is that you're unlikely to see a male founder asked anything similar, or be judged based on it. There's still a societal conception that "the woman will take care of the kids," so the new-child flak that would potentially make a founder look worse doesn't necessarily affect potential male founders to the same de…

It's difficult for men to breastfeed the kids, that is one of the problems... And why is it not a female-privilege issue? How many jobs are so great that they are preferable to taking care of your own kids?