Female Founder Secrets: Fertility • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#551

Post by frEdmbx » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #330

frEdmbx wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having children isn't easy. Having children near peak fertility is relatively easier than later. If a woman has the foresight to know that she would like to have a family first, and then work on her career, she could focus on finding a husband who can provide the resources necessary to both have children between 18-25, and support starting a business later. This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a reason…

> This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a reason. It also used to be much more common for women to wed older and more established men. It also used to be less common for women to go to college. There are lots of societal norms that have changed to make early parenthood less popular than it used to be.

Yes, and everyone who wishes to empower women to be able to choose the life they want for themselves should encourage understanding of the tradeoffs. There are too many sources of lies and distractions that would have us all believe that we have nothing to consider, and all the time in the world. This is, of course, nonsense.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#552

Post by yibg » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 11:59 PM UTC

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…

I think there is also an increasing sense that young people should enjoy life and freedom. Travel, go on adventures etc. I certainly had that attitude in my 20s, and didn't want to be tied down. Seems like it's a relatively recent thing. Older generations had a pretty straight path from school to work to family + kids.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#553

Post by bradleyjg » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:03 AM UTC

ramzyo wrote: post #531

bradleyjg wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if corporate attorney is taking time off to raise a child society should value, and pay, more for that then if a public defender is?

This is a loaded question. "society should value" and "pay more" are separate arguments. By agreeing to the first I'm not agreeing to the second. I think society should value taking time off to raise children, yes. However, I don't think that society should value a corporate attorney doing this more than a public defender doing it. To do so would value raising children unequally. A universal basic income with an addi…

Okay, then we are no longer talking about paid time off and we are no longer addressing the trade-offs involved in taking time away from a lucrative career in SV.

Which is fine with me, I don’t think that’s a problem that needs solving but you and others in this thread had implied otherwise.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#554

Post by AussieWog93 » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:04 AM UTC

krrrh wrote: post #495

coryfklein wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't men write about it?

Parts of what she wrote are similar to parts of what James Damore wrote, and he was fired for it.

James Damore went a bit further than the author did. He also didn't take care to avoid offense and misunderstanding when talking about certain topics.

For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. He's technically correct in terms of the psychological definition of the word (women will, on average, experience higher levels of anxiety than men when exposed to the same level of negative stimulus), but he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic.

If a woman had written what he did, she would have been ripped to shreds also.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#555

Post by yocheckitdawg » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:04 AM UTC

landryraccoon wrote: post #291

kmclean wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, single, childless women are also the happiest population demographic. ( https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-h... ) I don't disagree homemaking should be less stigmatized, but the real problem is American startup culture that expects this kind of around-the-clock all-in hustle mentality. The vast majority of businesses are actually just small firms with a few people that make a de…

I wonder what the data looks like if you regress happiness onto age for single women. I have no difficulty believing single, childless women are very happy in their 20s and 30s. I wonder though if that rapidly changes past 40. I would hypothesize the same effect happens for men as well.

Yea, dont get me wrong I think that being a childless woman in your 40s is particularly rough but I don't think it is easy for men either. Loneliness really starts to set in by that age.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#556

Post by foolinaround » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:09 AM UTC

Another reason to have children earlier is that they tend to make a person mature much faster! And this is going to only be good for your career because as you get close to your 50s, you are reasonably fit, wiser and more time on your hands as the kids have now grown up...

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#557

Post by refurb » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:10 AM UTC

DavidVoid wrote: post #254

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…

Although I won't have children myself, I'm very glad that I live in a country (Sweden) where we have 480 days of parental leave (and each parent has an exclusive right to 90 of those days). Yes, you don't get paid as much during those days (~80%), but it allows parents (not just mothers) to stay home for longer periods of time to raise their children. It can ofc cause some disturbances in your career (especially if y…

Not sure how this solves the issue of “I want to commit to a start up for 10 years and now my fertility sucks”

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#558

Post by StavrosK » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:14 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #554

krrrh wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parts of what she wrote are similar to parts of what James Damore wrote, and he was fired for it.

James Damore went a bit further than the author did. He also didn't take care to avoid offense and misunderstanding when talking about certain topics. For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. He's technically correct in terms of the psychological definition of the word (women will, on average, experience higher levels of anxiety than men when exposed to the same level of negative stimu…

> For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. [..] he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic.

You're doing it too. If I say "men have, on average, more muderous tendencies than women", am I describing 3.5 billion people as murderers?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#559

Post by monksy » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:15 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #483

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…

I don't want to blame this on 'toxic masculinity', but I think there are a lot of men who would make allies for this sort of work if they would stop for a moment and think about what's good for them instead of toeing the party line. I am deeply convinced that I would be as productive at 32 hours a week as I am at 40, ±5%. And the +5% in particular interests me, because it would say a lot about how we are mishandling…

> but I think there are a lot of men who would make allies for this sort of work if they would stop for a moment and think about what's good for them instead of toeing the party line.

Men are "toeing the partying line?" I must have missed that memo.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#560

Post by sbierwagen » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 12:15 AM UTC

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…

>But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that.

Something of a chicken and egg problem there.

If you want companies to stop talking about gender, you need to get the NYT to stop writing articles about how a gender ratio any lower than 50:50 in any role at a company is proof positive that the company is evil and must be destroyed.

This would require that culture, broadly, stop believing women need to have a formal job. Such cultures exist, but I feel there would be a certain amount of resistance in moving the West to such a model.