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

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

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

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

#31

Post by mattmanser »

jlarocco wrote: post #24
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…

> 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.

So you're just going to disregard the entire point of the article in your comment?

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

#32

Post by waterlesscloud »

Headline is completely misleading and unfair to the VC in question.

From his post where he voiced his thoughts on the topic- "Ultimately I decided to invest, namely because I gave a commitment to invest and decided that pregnancy shouldn’t impact my decision."

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-founders-2011-4

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

#33

Post by mattmanser »

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…

A right to discriminate? What you're advocating is a right to discriminate based on your unfounded feelings that a pregnant woman can't handle it.

You're basically a sexist but you don't want to admit it. That's what all this boils down to. Let's tell the women they're not good enough because popping out a sprog makes their brains go mushy.

Sounds harsh? Take a good look in the mirror.

What is your real problem with the women founder?

EDIT: I get angry at this shit as my sister, one of the most driven and talented people I know is at nearing this stage in life and I would bet on her a thousand times over other people. She's an amazing woman and I would happily bet on her founding a successful company in a heartbeat regardless of whether she was having a child or not.

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

#34

Post by feral »

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…

>As long as P(big success | funds preggo) With that line of logic, where do you stop? Is there any variable on which its not OK to condition?

I actually think its fair enough to say that there are certain factors that we all agree, as a society, that we should ignore, when it comes to decisions like this.

Sometimes we might codify that agreement to ignore into law, like the hiring law you mention which prevents discrimination on certain grounds. But the reason it has been so codified, is because we agree that type of discrimination is globally bad, right?

Would you really argue that VCs are supposed to absolutely anything to maximise returns, within the law, even something we all know is bad?

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

#35

Post by robwgibbons »

It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman: starting up a company when you know you have twins on the way is a really ballsy move. Like, ballsy to the point that I personally believe it shows a lack of dedication to the company, the babies, or perhaps a bit of both.

A startup company is basically a newborn baby. It requires continuous attention and care, cleaning and feeding. Except, unlike in the case of twins, it can't be given a bath and fed alongside another baby. This baby is an attention-hungry baby with special needs and demands, which requires focused, dedicated care to thrive and grow.

And to reverse the analogy, caring for children is in itself a full-time job, just as hard if not harder than starting a company. When shit hits the fan and you get 3 hours of sleep every night for a week, which of your dependents becomes your priority? Are you going to care for your children or get hard work done?

I'm not arguing that it can't be done, but I also think there's little argument that taking on both significantlty drives down the odds of success, to the point that it's questionable why any VC would give them their money.

I say either found your company before you have kids and wait until the company is no longer a newborn, or have your kids before you found and wait until the kids are no longer newborns.

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

#36

Post by Turing_Machine »

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.

$20.00/hour is not at all unheard of for an experienced checker at a major chain (it varies a lot depending on the area of the country, though).

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

#37

Post by yummyfajitas »

feral wrote: post #34
yummyfajitas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>As long as P(big success | funds preggo) With that line of logic, where do you stop? Is there any variable on which its not OK to condition? I actually think its fair enough to say that there are certain factors that we all agree, as a society, that we should ignore, when it comes to decisions like this. Sometimes we might codify that agreement to ignore into law, like the hiring law you mention which prevents discr…

I don't see any compelling reason why the choices of an entrepreneur are a variable that the VC should ignore. Could you explain why you believe this?

(As a side note, I also see no reason why shareholders of corporations should have any special obligation to subsidize parents. But that's a separate debate.)

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

#38

Post by yummyfajitas »

rwallace wrote: post #29
yummyfajitas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is human capital burned by funding the person most likely to succeed?

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

#39

Post by jlarocco »

mattmanser wrote: post #31
jlarocco wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So you're just going to disregard the entire point of the article in your comment?

Most of the article seemed to be pointing out that she could do it, regardless of what the VC thinks.

Or did you mean the "nobody questions an expecting father's ability to work" part?

I just don't think it's true. If I were going to invest money in a small business run by a man expecting a child, I'd question whether he'd be able to handle both running a business and having a baby.

Unless I missed it, there's actually no evidence showing the VC from the article wouldn't do the same thing.

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

#40

Post by bartonfink »

Tichy wrote: post #30
eropple wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I can say with absolute certainty that if my wife could bring home the same salary as I do, I would trade places with her in a heartbeat and be a stay-at-home dad. It's not even a ? in my mind.
Post reply on HN