Female Founder Secrets: Fertility • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#591

Post by nostrademons » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:21 AM UTC

sbierwagen wrote: post #572

nostrademons wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steady states are the exception in nature, not the rule. It's quite normal to have a population that increases exponentially, hits resource limits, and then decreases rapidly. (This was like literally 1/3 of my calculus class - it's a pretty classic example for coupled partial differential equations.) Eventually the population declines enough that the resource limits no longer apply, and people start having babies ag…

So your... plan... is to wait for Western civilization to fall, and have the survivors return to traditional society amongst the abandoned buildings of the dead empire? Your best case scenario is population collapse, but to do it without disease or conflict? Just everyone peacefully getting old and dying without having children?

If we really can get it without war or disease, why not? People will be able to afford houses again. Wages will go up. Inequality will probably decrease, at the cost of making the rich people much less rich. Maybe we'll even get some semblance of community again. Aren't these all the things that people on both sides of the political spectrum are asking for?

Oftentimes, what's good for the empire isn't good for the citizens of the empire. So yeah, I'm happy to leave behind the wreckages of a dead empire if it means more for the people in that empire.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing that we'll get the war, or the pandemic, or both. That's how things have historically ended.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#592

Post by thwarted » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:23 AM UTC

spenczar5 wrote: post #476

JPKab wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet Could you provide a cite for this? It's an extraordinary claim. It doesn't match with my understanding of some historical cultures.

> It's an extraordinary claim.

The claim that the being who ends up exerting significant effort and time to reproduction (effort that immediately and directly eats into the non-reproductive economic output) is looking for a mate with enough spare (earning/capital) capacity to support themselves and a family is extraordinary?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#593

Post by underpand » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:27 AM UTC

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…

This conversation seems to be geared towards upper middle class, dual income professionals that usually have $150,000+ household income. It's difficult for me to sympathize and see these issues as more than entitlement.

First, since household income is a combination of the mother and father's incomes, women still have the same household income and spending power as men. The remaining complaint is worse work fulfillment for women. I don't think people are entitled to work fulfillment. It's a minor issue in my eyes. There are advantages and drawbacks to this issue. While mothers have a more difficult time with work fulfillment and climbing the corporate ladder, mothers also have an easier time avoiding the corporate environment and work pressure. Women who don't find fulfillment at work can more easily not work than the equivalent men.

Second, ignoring gender and seeing this from a gender-neutral parent perspective, many of these upper middle class parents are lamenting the tradeoff between living an upper middle class lifestyle and being parents. I don't think there is a problem when upper middle class parents have to downgrade their living standards when becoming parents. I don't think people are entitled to an upper middle class lifestyle.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#594

Post by curveaway » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

frenchy wrote: post #395

seneca wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This arrangement has existed for at least thousands of years and is called "marriage". Well said. The modern inclination to tear down tradition institution and then replace them with increasingly more damaging and convoluted schemes is an endless source of confusion to me. It's almost if we've become so arrogant that we assume if something has been done for generations that it must be wrong, which seems like the ex…

There's also a inclination (not specifically modern) to mythologize traditional institutions. For example, the notion of a medieval knight in full plate. The modern notion of traditional parenting is about 60 years old. Before that, things were much less straightforward, unless you were rich, because the absense of modern machinery and whatnot meant that that often both parents had to work.

Hell raising kids in the 60s & 70s is a lot less work. You could send the kids off into the neighborhood to play with all the other kids and only interact with them when they had issues. Otherwise they would rather be out exploring the local woods or streets with all the other kids, and family being around to help out.

Now with the legal necessity of 24/7 adult supervision before they are 12, that is gone and as a result you have helicopter parenting making it a shit ton more work to do.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#595

Post by curveaway » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #344

retrac wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no less fair than me having to pay school taxes when I have no children. Healthy families and adequate children so the population pyramid doesn't implode (more of an issue in other developed countries than North America) is a pressing issue that affects everyone in those societies. We should pay our part of it.

My town exempts people over 55 from some school parcel taxes. That is because there needs to e a supermajority to pass bonds and exempting people who don’t have school age children makes them much easier to pass. There is a balance that needs to be reached here. If you take this to the extreme, I could have no children and work while my neighbor has 7 children and chooses not to work.

Those 55+ year olds don't realize who are paying their pension and medical care.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#596

Post by evrydayhustling » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #571

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…

Here's an unpopular thought: raising kids, motivating them to learn, helping them mature, teaching them your values, helping them get out of bad influence, is a full-time job. It requires education to explain the right things and show good examples. It requires soft skills to be patient and persuasive. It requires people skills to counter out bad influencers. It requires time, dedication and patience. It's not the sa…

Family skills can be valued by many people, but they are visible and impactful mainly within the family. As a result, a partner with a public career has more personal options. They can find new jobs, negotiate their schedule, and invest in themselves to have a secure source of income in case of disaster. Thus can work wonderfully for equal partners who share the opportunity together, but it can create a power imbalance when things - any of a wide variety of things - go wrong.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#597

Post by underpand » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:38 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…

This is a baseless generalization of men. Men are not an obstacle to a 32 hour work week.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#598

Post by ncallaway » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #484

ncallaway wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation. It's not that we _want_ to be paid. It's that we _need_ to be paid, because in order to raise a child you need a stable source of critical things for many years: - food & water - shelter (and heat) - clothing - waste disposal If I wanted to take several years entirely aw…

> How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid? From savings or by having another family member work? Combinations of that worked for a very long time in human history.

Sure, but that's just shifting who is getting paid or when.

The person I was responding to said that people were obsessed with getting paid versus the social obligations.

I was explaining why people who would want to stay at home might be obsessed about payment. It's a question that must be answered.

You provide some potential answers, but for the vast majority of young Americans these days having enough savings to raise a child by themselves without working is not in any way realistic.

Even for the "have another family work" plan, for many a single income isn't enough to support 2 adults and raising a child. The economy just doesn't make that viable for a large swath of the country.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#599

Post by higerordermap » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:44 AM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #506

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…

> Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that creates a genuine barrier for women. HN is to technical discussions what ____ is to social discussions. Please fill in the blank. Serious question, and thanks to any serious respondents!

HN

No need to thank me.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#600

Post by Retric » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #576

StavrosK wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, but I don't find the fault to be with the statement, but with people. Our inability to separate "inconvenient general fact" from "specific, personal insult to whole swathes of people" is one of the banes of modern discourse.

Unfortunately, you're communicating with other people. Unless you find a way to magically stop people getting triggered, it's best to avoid certain trigger words and be careful when expressing certain points.

Or actually educate people on both logic and reality. I realize it seems to be asking for a lot, but we can do better.