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

What nobody says about startup moms

femfosec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#271

Post by dragonwriter »

paulcole wrote: post #259
dragonwriter wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kids have a massive carbon footprint and are probably the worst thing a person in the first world can do to the environment. This is true in exactly the same broken sense of value “to the environment” that mass murder (especially of the young and rich) is the best thing one can do to the environment.

I don’t think that’s what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that a new kid is not a no-brainer net gain for society. There is clearly an environmental cost to adding more high-consuming people to the planet. See: the planet. I never said that killing people is good for the environment. While (possibly) technically true, it’s not an argument I’m making. My argument: Cars are bad for the environment, so maybe ride a bike.…

> I’m saying that a new kid is not a no-brainer net gain for society

There’s a pretty big excluded middle between “no-brainer net gain for society” and “he worst thing a person in the first world can do to the environment”. If you just mean not the former, don’t actually write the latter.

> I never said that killing people is good for the environment.

Nor did I say you did. What I did say is that what you did say is only even arguably true from the same perspective under which killing people is the best thing you can do for the environment. Because, it is.

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#272

Post by prawn »

barry-cotter wrote: post #270
prawn wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right in that for many people, life is directionless without work and a schedule handed to them. I find it incredible that there are politicians in their 70s and 80s - especially considering the demands that job would have in terms of travel and public events. Buy a caravan and go on an extended holiday like the stereotypical retiree! And that there are exceptionally wealthy people still with their nos…

Those politicians and businesses people are living their best life, doing the thing they are excellent at. Not what I’d do in their situations but no one asks why a novelist or painter is still practicing their art in their 90s.

An artist or writer would have the bulk of their time in their studio or at their desk. Things that people aspire to do as a hobby. There'd optionally be time at galleries/openings.

A politician would have day after day packed with events and travel. You'd need to be switched on, constantly. I can appreciate that a career politician would feel it was their calling, but I often wonder when they plan to step back and let others influence proceedings.

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#273

Post by worik »

barry-cotter wrote: post #254
kelnos wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the armchair mental illness diagnosis is a bit much, but otherwise agree. It's funny to consider that futurists of the early/mid 20th century expected that automation would take over most jobs and that people would have much more leisure time. If anything, the opposite has happened, with unskilled workers needing to hold more than one job just to get by, and many skilled workers -- especially salaried workers…

> I think the armchair mental illness diagnosis is a bit much, but otherwise agree. Unless worik has a wildly different definition of mental illness from the USA and every other industrialized society he’s advocating for caging and drugging people who have different preferences from him. Turing killed himself because of how he was treated for his “mental illness”. The Soviets treated many people with antipsychotics f…

Actually I think making money into the billions is a symptom of obsessive compulsive disorder.

But I have no power, so my opinion is cheep!

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#275

Post by danielmarkbruce »

alex_young wrote: post #106
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here’s the thing - you shouldn’t have to choose between a career and having children. I actually disagree, and that's the reason I loved this article so much: it acknowledges that, at the upper end, you do have to choose. Of course, everyone should be able to have a career and also have children, and I agree that there are a lot of things society can do to make this an easier tradeoff. However, should everyone be a…

I'm not entirely sure we disagree on the point I was attempting to make. I didn't say that one should never be allowed to choose between being the CEO or having children at the same time, but I do think it's a societal failure if the choice is between having a career at all and having children, especially if that's a gendered ultimatum. I may actually disagree with you on the CEO point in another way however - Who kn…

No one is saying the choice is "career at all" v "spending time with children". It's "having a crazy busy career" v "spending time with children".

It can't be any other way. If one is willing to give up everything for X, they are almost certainly going to do better at X compared to equivalent folks who aren't willing to give it up.

And, it isn't a choice society makes. Individuals make it, for themselves.

Society isn't failing in the sense of having to make choices. Society is failing when it glorifies those to give up everything for X. It's just a choice, and it's usually not glorious.

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#276

Post by scientismer »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #267
scientismer wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the exact same challenges. He just was able to overcome them better than you, by having/picking/convincing a wife who takes care of the home. You all made your choices.

I guess so. I mean, he's from a generation when most women didn't work and I'm from a generation when most women do work. He bought his house long before prices skyrocketed, I wasn't in the workforce until long after they did. So, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, but you're not wrong either.

So your wife has to work because your house was so expensive? I wonder about the place where you live. When your boss bought his home, was it cheap everywhere, or did he pick an affordable location that now has become expensive?

It's not a must that woman work in this day and age.

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#277

Post by hulahoof »

cgrealy wrote: post #219
robocat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you would be a good parent and want kids, then I believe the idea of delaying is harmful, especially if you are over say 25. Trying to set up the perfect nest, or to save "enough", is not a game that most people can win. At least, the above is from what I have seen of friends that had kids, compared with those that delayed too long.

> If you would be a good parent and want kids, then I believe the idea of delaying is harmful, especially if you are over say 25. 25?!? None of the people I know who have kids started trying for them until their 30s. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying your 20s and having kids when you’re ready.

The risk of genetic defects increase with age[1]. You are right though, you can definitely have healthy children in your 30's, though late 40s looks a little scary.

[1] https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Gene...

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#278

Post by filleduchaos »

usrusr wrote: post #189
filleduchaos wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my strongest socioeconomic stances is that the nuclear family was a mistake.

But the opposite all too often results in a situation where family trees become power structures and that's how you time-travel back into the middle ages.

I am honestly completely lost as to how the extended family and/or communal living is "time travel back into the middle ages".

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#279

Post by filleduchaos »

noptd wrote: post #262
filleduchaos wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my strongest socioeconomic stances is that the nuclear family was a mistake.

What would your preferred alternative be?

Extended family living, as was the norm for the vast majority of human history up until the mid 20th (and is still a fairly equal alternative in many parts of the world).

Re: What nobody says about startup moms

#280

Post by filleduchaos »

simplify wrote: post #221
filleduchaos wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my strongest socioeconomic stances is that the nuclear family was a mistake.

How is this related to op's comment?

I would have thought the connection between the sequestering of nuclear families in single family homes and the dwindling of communal childcare/rise of expensive commercial childcare options to be fairly obvious.
Post reply on HN