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

181–190 of 770 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#181

Post by tmpz22 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #6
rantwasp wrote: post #3

I empathize with how hard it is for a female founder in particular and for a woman in general when it comes to mixing children with a career. That said the advice to freeze your eggs (ie work now, live later) rubs me the wrong way. I wish we could live in a society where people would not have to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... enjoy life

Our society doesn't force or even encourage people to be startup founders -- they choose it for themselves. There are plenty of examples of classes of people who have to work harder than they should in an ideal society, but I'm not sure what point you're making with this particular one.

There is an imperative to be a high earner due to skyrocketing housing, medical, and education costs in the United States. At the same time popular media like Wolf of Wall Street, The Social Network, and Shark Tank, show how life affirming and beneficial it is to gain wealth.

To many start-ups seem like a short cut - even if they are laughably not.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#182

Post by judge2020 »

llimos wrote: post #138
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…

1000% this. > Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable? Growing up in a "traditional" family, the first thing that struck me when I went to work at a big investment bank was how the women did everything they could to be like men - all the way down to dress. I remember thinking, this is called equality? That what men traditionally did is clearly so much better, so women now need to become men, and we should cel…

It might not be emulating men as much as it is simply dressing business casual or business professional because it’s required while in the office.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#183

Post by africanboy »

Karawebnetwork wrote: post #147
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? Why do we assume that those behaviors are inherently a man's? Women that have a drive to become business leaders do so for personal reasons and not to emulate anyone (except perhaps personal heroes who could happen to be women). You later speak about a wish to become a stay-at-home father. Is this emulating women or is it a wish based on activities that are not inher…

I don't think that the intention was that, but since we are commenting on an article that suggest to women to "freeze their eggs" while pursuing a carreer as a founder, it's probably honest to acknowledge the fact that men don't need to freeze their eggs if they want to have kids later in their lives and can have them while pursuing a career because, in some countries more than others, like in the US for example, women are highly penalized for the fact that they can get pregnant.

So it's less a men's problem than it is a women's problem.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#184

Post by sokoloff »

defen wrote: post #160
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…

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. Th…

What you say is true, but partly orthogonal. If not owning a car is one of the most important things to you, then as a friend, I would counsel you to arrange your life to prioritize that. Live in NYC or Boston. Or Amsterdam or Paris. In all of those places, car ownership is a net negative and so you'll find a lot of life arranged to assume you don't own a car and as a result, a lot of like-minded people.

If your frustration is that many others choose to own a car and prioritize their consumption differently, again as a friend I would tell you in the most polite way I could muster to make your choices based on your values and let others make their choices based on their values. You can also try to reshape all of society or some small corner of it, but first and foremost, I'd advise you to make pragmatic choices to improve your daily existence.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#186

Post by david-gpu »

core-questions wrote: post #125
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…

> Of course women should follow their heart and we should build a society that allows them to do so on equal terms, but we should not discourage homemaking and stigmatize people who want to raise children. I think that many women do actually have the desire to be mothers in their hearts, and that they repress this desire in the current social context because having children is no longer something that confers high st…

Somebody is down voting you, possibly because of the non-gender-neutral language, but I agree with your message: we currently overvalue wealth and job status and undervalue the joy of raising a family.

I switched to a 4-day week to find a better work-life balance and couldn't be happier. Time with my kids is more valuable than the salary cut.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#187

Post by munk-a »

fastball wrote: post #69
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do that as a hobby, or you can do it as a startup but treat the startup as a 9-5. (Your leisurely pace of work might hurt your chances of staying ahead of your competitors, but that's only important if you want the wealth and fame part.)

Hmm I don't think that's quite right. In order for me to continue building something nobody has built, I need it to be generating revenue. And in order to generate revenue I need to stay ahead of the competition, which probably requires not treating it like a 9-5. So yes I'm pursuing money, but not to achieve vast personal wealth, but rather to ensure my (hopefully) novel business is long-term viable.

I disagree with this - I think it's very much a reflection of the modern world being quite focused on profits and revenue - you can build an exceedingly successful thing that doesn't provide a clear revenue stream. It won't come with the glamour that other options may have but if you look at passion projects from things like open source libraries all the way down to dwarf fortress it's quite possible to make a living building a thing - it just won't give you 200k+ in annual income.

There is a place for artisanal projects in the modern world - a lot of creative folks subsist greatly on patreon as a source of income.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#188

Post by lotsofpulp »

dcow wrote: post #151
austincheney wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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.

I'm not aware of any stigma from women being stay at home moms. My impression is that most, if not all, people are aware that money gives you power (or freedom, if you will). And who doesn't like freedom.

There's also less security of income for everyone, so a household relying on one spouse's income is risky. Especially if there's no extended family around that can come to the rescue in the event of loss of income.

>Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?

Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal. So I would say there are a lot of incentives for women to work, but not because society stigmatizes it, but because it leads to optimal results for women (and men).

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#189

Post by ARandumGuy »

llimos wrote: post #138
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…

1000% this. > Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable? Growing up in a "traditional" family, the first thing that struck me when I went to work at a big investment bank was how the women did everything they could to be like men - all the way down to dress. I remember thinking, this is called equality? That what men traditionally did is clearly so much better, so women now need to become men, and we should cel…

Did they act and dress like men because of "equality," or because that's the only way they can actually be taken seriously?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#190

Post by sturgill »

silvestrov wrote: post #155
madamelic wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ru…

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

Until COVID hits and children have to be taught virtually from home.

There are no easy and cheap answers here, but a series of trade offs. I think the original question is “where is the conversation of the trade off?” I don’t think it’s settled that the ideal social structure involves a dual income family. And I think very few people envy the workload required of single mothers, regardless of technical advances that make cleaning a home easier.

Caregiving goes well beyond making sure the kids have clean underwear.

Post reply on HN