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

401–410 of 770 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#401

Post by nzmsv »

andi999 wrote: post #44
nzmsv wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chances of having a kid with a serious disorder go up dramatically for older mothers (and recent research shows this is true for fathers too). Even if we decide only to care about economics and not the kids health, health issues are expensive.

Can you point to the 'dramatic' risks for older fathers? Usually it is a minor change in chance blown up by sensational press.

First hit on Google: https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20100208/autism-risk...

77% increase seems pretty dramatic to me.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#402

Post by ovi256 »

kungito wrote: post #346
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really housing and then money only as a prerequisite to that. To start a family you need somewhere to live. When housing costs are insane you need crazy money to afford it, so everything becomes about money.

It's ridiculous how often people repeat this because they want to live in expensive areas. You don't really have to do that.

When living in an expensive area, one doesn't have to wonder if it's a desirable area. It's obvious it is, look how expensive it is. We copy what others want, a lot, unconsciously.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#403

Post by StillBored »

Why is this specific to females? This happens to males indirectly. Unless your fabulously wealthy and can basically hire a 25 Y/O wife/Surrogate Mother, most men have steadily declining chance to have a child as they get older too. Simply because the available pool of fertile females willing to have a child with them is declining.

That is not even to mention actual biological problems that make men functionally infertile. So while its technically possible for men to have children until they are dead, realistically a large number are loosing their fertility as well. I know couples in their 30's/early 40's where it turned out to be the male causing the problems.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#404

Post by jedberg »

Teknoman117 wrote: post #398

As a (male) who is definitely uninformed - does female fertility begin to decrease far earlier than the biological capacity to have a successful pregnancy (post conception)? As in, if a woman was to freeze some of her eggs in say, her 20's and desire to use them for IVF in her late 30's, is it still safe for her to have a child?

In short, yes, kind of. There is a decrease in success the older the mother is, but the age of the eggs plays a key role in the success rate. 20 year old eggs have a higher chance of success with IVF than 35 year old eggs.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#405

Post by JPKab »

throwaway6734 wrote: post #351
monoideism wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partly that, but it's partly what the GP comment says: the prevalent idea that true equality of the sexes is for women to become exact copies of men. Since women and men are not exact copies, this causes problems.

Imo it's because there's less social resistance for women to take on the roles of men. Until men that take on the former roles of women are viewed equivalently in the dating market, it's going to be a much harder slog

Women across all income demographics desire men who make as much or more than them. It's a fundamental preference that OKCupid identified a long time ago.

As a man, I don't fault this. The risk to a man of reproducing with a woman who isn't great at making money isn't as high, at a fundamental level, as it is for women. A man isn't incapacitated in any way by the act of reproducing. Nor is he prevented or blocked out of reproducing with others, at an evolutionary level. A woman is at great risk for mating with a man who isn't a good provider. If he abandons her, she's stuck. This was the reality for our ancestors, and those preferences are baked into our genes. The opportunity cost of mating with a loser was horrific for women.

In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet, not unlike the biological attraction men have to women who display physical features that are indicative of high fertility.

Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#406

Post by pattt »

vecplane wrote: post #207

Wait, why is the advice to 'do something invasive, risky, and unnatural' when the actual advice should be 'have children when you're younger, not older.'

I personally agree with your sentiment but the two provided advice examples are not comparable, it's not just about giving a birth but also raising your kids which can give your career a good break. Incidentally this perspective also reveals our sad state of priorities.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#407

Post by afaejzjfiefia »

astan wrote: post #67

Your whole blog resonates deeply with me. All this corporate grifting and women's empowerment months will do jack shit until we figure out how to make workplaces and lives more equitable for mothers and allowing for gaps, breaks and destigmatizing time off for parents of both genders. Instead, we talk about how sexism is the biggest problem. Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that…

> it wasn't automatically assumed that you would be a worse founder or professor or software engineer just because you have 2-4 years you didn't commercially work.

Is there any scenario in life were someone with 2-4 more years of experience (maybe 50% more at that point in time) isn't more valued for their greater experience? What is the difference between a junior and senior engineers salary for instance? A 4 year break is possibly worse in that regard.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#408

Post by [deleted] »

Teknoman117 wrote: post #398

As a (male) who is definitely uninformed - does female fertility begin to decrease far earlier than the biological capacity to have a successful pregnancy (post conception)? As in, if a woman was to freeze some of her eggs in say, her 20's and desire to use them for IVF in her late 30's, is it still safe for her to have a child?

[deleted]

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#409

Post by ljf »

as300 wrote: post #288
astan wrote: post #67

Your whole blog resonates deeply with me. All this corporate grifting and women's empowerment months will do jack shit until we figure out how to make workplaces and lives more equitable for mothers and allowing for gaps, breaks and destigmatizing time off for parents of both genders. Instead, we talk about how sexism is the biggest problem. Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that…

Unfortunately I just don't think it's a tenable position to assert that women (or men) should be able to take 2-4 years off of work and not be disadvantaged in their career for doing so. I wholeheartedly support the idea that, as a society, we ought to value childcare/child-rearing and (perhaps monetarily) support those who perform this service. But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for…

Genuine question, who should?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#410

Post by cam0 »

centimeter wrote: post #349
ksdale wrote: post #239

I agree completely with the premise that most people don't appreciate just how fleeting fertility can be, but I think rather than freezing eggs, the solution is for people to normalize having children at a younger age and designing work and home life around children existing and even being present in certain work contexts. Obviously freezing your eggs is something that you can do as individual without society's input…

It's clear that, on so many levels, the gradual deferral of child-bearing to the 30s (even 40s!) has been incredibly costly and destructive to society. We need to figure out a way to reconcile having children starting in the late teens and ending in the mid-20s (which is by far the safest, cheapest, and easiest time to do it) with the modern economy (which prioritizes slavishly focusing on school/work until your fert…

How do you think it's been incredibly costly and destructive to society?
Post reply on HN