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

41–49 of 49 posts

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

#41

Post by rwallace »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #38
rwallace wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It's burned by creating an atmosphere in which people get to thinking they need to start a company instead of having children. (Or thinking they'll have children "later" which typically amounts to the same thing - "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans".)

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

#42

Post by rwallace »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #37
feral wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.)

> I don't see any compelling reason why the choices of an entrepreneur are a variable that the VC should ignore.

Many people agree that e.g. the entrepreneur's religion and sexual preferences are variables the VC should ignore, even if they were statistically correlated to success. Do you disagree with that position?

> I also see no reason why shareholders of corporations should have any special obligation to subsidize parents.

I do: the parents are subsidizing the future. The shareholders' money is going to be pretty worthless to them in the long run if there is no next generation of workforce from whom to purchase goods and services.

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

#43

Post by ibotty »

"Nearly all my 30-plus investors responded immediately with enthusiasm and congratulations, and many of them also offered to help [...]"

i certainly did not expect this. i'm always pessimistic about gender issues in the real world. maybe it is better than i think (not good, that's for sure).

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

#44

Post by yummyfajitas »

rwallace wrote: post #42
yummyfajitas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> I don't see any compelling reason why the choices of an entrepreneur are a variable that the VC should ignore. Many people agree that e.g. the entrepreneur's religion and sexual preferences are variables the VC should ignore, even if they were statistically correlated to success. Do you disagree with that position? > I also see no reason why shareholders of corporations should have any special obligation to subsidi…

Do you disagree with that position?

Yes.

But lets ignore my position, I'd like to extend your logic. You want VCs to make suboptimal investments for political reasons. Should you also be obligated to invest some fraction of your 401k in businesses you think are a suboptimal investment? If not, why not?

I do: the parents are subsidizing the future. The shareholders' money is going to be pretty worthless to them in the long run if there is no next generation of workforce from whom to purchase goods and services.

This argument is far more broad than you realize.

For example: "parents are subsidizing the future. The childless career woman's money is going to be pretty worthless to her in the long run if there is no next generation of workforce...".

Therefore, we should force childless career women to subsidize parents.

Do you believe the latter as well? If not, why not? What distinguishes childless career women from shareholders?

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

#45

Post by WalterSear »

Tichy wrote: post #23
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…

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

It's sexist to put aside those considerations due to gender politics.

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

#46

Post by WalterSear »

ibotty wrote: post #43

"Nearly all my 30-plus investors responded immediately with enthusiasm and congratulations, and many of them also offered to help [...]" i certainly did not expect this. i'm always pessimistic about gender issues in the real world. maybe it is better than i think (not good, that's for sure).

They all said, "A baby and a start up? Good luck with that."

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

#47

Post by Tichy »

WalterSear wrote: post #45
Tichy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's sexist to put aside those considerations due to gender politics.

I don't follow?

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

#48

Post by rwallace »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #44
rwallace wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see any compelling reason why the choices of an entrepreneur are a variable that the VC should ignore. Many people agree that e.g. the entrepreneur's religion and sexual preferences are variables the VC should ignore, even if they were statistically correlated to success. Do you disagree with that position? > I also see no reason why shareholders of corporations should have any special obligation to subsidi…

Do you disagree with that position? Yes. But lets ignore my position, I'd like to extend your logic. You want VCs to make suboptimal investments for political reasons. Should you also be obligated to invest some fraction of your 401k in businesses you think are a suboptimal investment? If not, why not? I do: the parents are subsidizing the future. The shareholders' money is going to be pretty worthless to them in the…

I believe childless people of both sexes should have to pay their share of the cost of raising the next generation, yes.

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

#49

Post by yummyfajitas »

rwallace wrote: post #48
yummyfajitas wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree with that position? Yes. But lets ignore my position, I'd like to extend your logic. You want VCs to make suboptimal investments for political reasons. Should you also be obligated to invest some fraction of your 401k in businesses you think are a suboptimal investment? If not, why not? I do: the parents are subsidizing the future. The shareholders' money is going to be pretty worthless to them in the…

I believe childless people of both sexes should have to pay their share of the cost of raising the next generation, yes.

Do you believe all investors (including Joe 401k) should be forced to make bad bets for political purposes, or only some? If so, which ones?
Post reply on HN