Female Founder Secrets: Fertility • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#151

Post by dcow » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #137

dcow wrote: post #116

I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what men do to be their equal. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could structure society in a way such that the value of raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frow…

Actually, why must the family homemaker necessarily be a woman? If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver. Either way raising children still takes time, energy, and focus that could otherwise pile into something else. While there are differences in general approaches males and females take in raising children I don't think there is any research…

1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today.

2. The problem is exactly with the characterization (that you made) of the “more ambitious” route being the career route. Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#152

Post by manmal » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #14

And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline. Our nation-wide workaholism is making family life an increasingly distant fantasy. I've had this discussion with my S/O before, and we've always come to the same conclusion: it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working. That's a difficult place to be in, considering we're both quite passionate about our jobs. It makes me quite de…

Sounds like you are selling your best years for a certain amount of money and lifestyle.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#153

Post by Nextgrid » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

dcow wrote: post #116

I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what men do to be their equal. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could structure society in a way such that the value of raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frow…

> Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?

I don't think it's a men vs women issue.

Our current society is structured in such a way that work is necessary to survive & thrive - it is usually not possible to take a lengthy break from work without financial & career consequences.

Whether you are taking that break for childcare or (to pick a typical men's stereotype) drinking beer & having BBQ's with your friends every day doesn't make a difference.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#154

Post by david-gpu » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #137

dcow wrote: post #116

I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what men do to be their equal. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could structure society in a way such that the value of raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frow…

Actually, why must the family homemaker necessarily be a woman? If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver. Either way raising children still takes time, energy, and focus that could otherwise pile into something else. While there are differences in general approaches males and females take in raising children I don't think there is any research…

I don't think the GP implied that women must be the caregivers given that he himself would be happy as a stay-at-home dad. I think he was just commenting about a common scenario.

> If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver

Why equate "ambition" with "desire for a high-paying career"? Somebody who wants to raise a family can also feel ambitious about it.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#155

Post by silvestrov » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

madamelic wrote: post #128

dcow wrote: post #116

I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what men do to be their equal. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could structure society in a way such that the value of raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frow…

>I think people have largely been presented a false promise: value and purpose is derived from working outside the home. FTFY. As you state further in, it's not women's exclusive job to be child-rearing nor is it not 'work' to maintain and run a house.

You'll have to accept that running a house is much less work today than it was 150 years ago when there was no fridge, no hover, no washing mashine, no ready-made food.

Today a single mom with full time job can still run a (not too big) house.

So to be fullfilling there has to be more than just keeping the house clean and people fed, which is probably why so many upper-upper-middle class women have a part-time job running some kind of fashion store.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#156

Post by k__ » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

lnsru wrote: post #89

k__ wrote: post #22

In Germany you can get a few years paid leave for getting a child. I met a few women who used their parenting time to found a company.

Paid leave is 12+2 months if both parents use it. And it’s capped at 1800€. Depending on location and business type it is absolutely reasonable to start something with that conditions. There are no paid years for sure.

Interesting, Wikipedia said something about up to 36 months per parent and per child.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#157

Post by nickdothutton » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

A 2016 study of 1,171 IVF cycles using frozen eggs found that, for women under 30, each egg retrieved had a 8.67% chance of resulting in a child; for women over 40, that chance dropped to less than 3% per egg at best. More likely closer to 1%. Reminder: If you are a woman, plan on having children in your 20s. If you’ve frozen your eggs you’ve probably wasted your money.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#158

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

yomly wrote: post #126

sokoloff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" didn't decide as a society. Rather individual people (and couples) in society decided that they'd prefer to have additional income [and stimulation] by choosing to work outside the home. Collectively, that dramatically increased the labor supply as compared to 100 years ago as well as increased the demand for goods and services. I don't want to have us go back to the old way where it was looked down upon or judg…

But now I have to be twice as financially successful to provide the equivalent level of support my parents did while my wife opts to be a full time parent. We both made free choices, but the environment has now made that considerably more expensive. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a value judgment but, sadly, being a stay at home parent isn't economically "valuable" and so the incentives have shifted over the years.

On the economic value point, my spouse elected to stay home when our second was born as we calculated that with their (well above median pay, PhD required) science job, that with two in daycare or paid pre-school, we were just breaking even on an after-tax monthly cash basis and so they’d be working full-time and the only headway we’d be making from their work and missing our kids’ development was maxing out another 401k account.

For us, that was an absolutely economically valued choice to stay home. Now that they’re in school, freelance science consulting adds to the household retirement savings in a very significant way (when self-employed, you can squirrel away about 92% of the gross income up to mid-five figures), which by now has probably filled in the gap from several years of no 401k contributions and growth and provides them with the intellectual stimulation and contribution in their field that is also desired.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#159

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

yomly wrote: post #126

sokoloff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" didn't decide as a society. Rather individual people (and couples) in society decided that they'd prefer to have additional income [and stimulation] by choosing to work outside the home. Collectively, that dramatically increased the labor supply as compared to 100 years ago as well as increased the demand for goods and services. I don't want to have us go back to the old way where it was looked down upon or judg…

But now I have to be twice as financially successful to provide the equivalent level of support my parents did while my wife opts to be a full time parent. We both made free choices, but the environment has now made that considerably more expensive. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a value judgment but, sadly, being a stay at home parent isn't economically "valuable" and so the incentives have shifted over the years.

I don't believe that is all down to the changing demographics of the labor force. Another aspect is the availability of land in desirable locales (i.e. close to metro areas). There are more than twice as many people in the U.S. now as there were "in the good old days" (by which I'm referring to the 50s and early 60s). And houses have gotten larger. And on top of that, people have been generally expressing a preference toward urbanization, with less than half as many people living in rural areas today compared to the 50s. All these factors have had a significant effect on housing prices, the dominant cost most American families pay.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#160

Post by defen » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #86

kgybcehbx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we used to have a society with a division of labor and stable institution of marriage so that women didn't have to work themselves to death through the child rearing years but we decided as a society that in order for women to be truly free, they need to be trapped in the same work to death life that men have been in since prehistoric times, to the detriment of their lives and the lives of our children. But it'l…

"We" didn't decide as a society. Rather individual people (and couples) in society decided that they'd prefer to have additional income [and stimulation] by choosing to work outside the home. Collectively, that dramatically increased the labor supply as compared to 100 years ago as well as increased the demand for goods and services. I don't want to have us go back to the old way where it was looked down upon or judg…

Counterpoint: let's say I hate the effect that car-ownership has had on society - you can't just tell me "well then you should just choose not to own a car". The problem is that society itself has been reshaped around the assumption that essentially everyone has a car. For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of locations in the USA, it's simply not viable to live without a car, or ready access to one.

That doesn't mean I should be able to reshape all of society according to my whims, but it seems flippant to dismiss the material circumstances that make single-breadwinner families economically infeasible for most American families by saying that people can just choose to live that life if they want.