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

651–660 of 770 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#651

Post by BobbyJo »

paledot wrote: post #623
lettergram wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of the people HN haven’t spent much time with people out of the “bubble”. “Trigger warning” This is my experience from my wife, our friends, and my community & family. But it might provide some insight. 90% of women I speak to would love not to work and would like to raise kids (most men too). It’s more about the wage gap. Most of the people I speak with believe (and I agree) believe the lack of wage gro…

Wage stagnation has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with the obscenely rich being permitted to get obscenely richer. It's disappointing that your friends have fallen for that lie.

If we took every dollar from all the billionaires in the US we could give everyone around 10k.

If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone around 100k.

We could do this exactly once, and it would destroy enough wealth (most of this money is in assets, whose value would be destroyed in the process) that the real value you'd get out of that number would be A LOT less.

The rich are not the source of the working man's problems no matter how many times it gets repeated. People are payed based on supply and demand. Supply and demand is a byproduct of private property. If you like owning things, you're stuck with capitalism and supply and demand.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#652

Post by bdcravens »

johngalt wrote: post #567
bdcravens wrote: post #381

My wife and I waited too long to try IVF, and at that point, we had only one shot because we hadn't frozen more eggs sooner. (and our once chance was unsuccessful)

This may not mean much from some stranger on the internet, but I'm sorry that this happened to you. I wish you well.

Thank you for the kind words.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#653

Post by Negitivefrags »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #648
bradleyjg wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But our society has taken a weird turn. Instead of recognizing the importance of this job, respecting stay-at-home parents and encouraging as many families as possible to invest in the future by taking the best care of their kids, we have effectively destroyed it. I don’t accept the “we” here. Who did what exactly to “destroy” it? And thanks to supply/demand, it's now expected for both spouses to work if you want a r…

> That’s true whether that $200k/year comes from one earner or two. In fact, if it comes from one earner you are a little better off tax-wise (because of the social security cap.) Wait. What? Where are you that does not have tax brackets? Is that common in the US? In Australia you are substantially penalised for being a household that draws all your income from one person. It's not even close. And it's infuriating. O…

In the US they have the concept of filing jointly. If you have one partner earning a lot more than the other then you can get tax bracket advantages of both when you pool your incomes together.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#654

Post by bopbeepboop »

vbtemp wrote: post #451
tomcam wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. This is something dudes can't write about. My wife & I simply decided decades ago that one of us would always not work. We lived cheaply so we could accomplish that goal, but we wanted a good family life. I would have been happy to be a househusband because she's about 50 times the programmer I am, but she doesn't love business and I do. We ended up doing great, but we had to start out assuming that a 2-caree…

> It would have been nice if the popular press had been a little more honest about the biology You are not alone with this sentiment. Some years ago, in my 20s/early 30s-something friend groups, any time the topic of declining female fertility with age came up, it was basically attacked as fake news and a conspiracy by older, conservative family members to get them to breed. Moreover, sex education in school was 110%…

This is super unpopular, but I think young marriages actually give women more autonomy.

When you’re 18, marry a 30 year old guy — then take 6 years for undergrad, have three kids along the way, and let him pay for it. Then do graduate school while they grow up.

You’ll get out of school, debt free at 30, and already have three kids at school age — ready to be bussed off while you tackle that career. You won’t have to take a career break for children, because they’ll be in school when you start.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#655

Post by [deleted] »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #648
bradleyjg wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But our society has taken a weird turn. Instead of recognizing the importance of this job, respecting stay-at-home parents and encouraging as many families as possible to invest in the future by taking the best care of their kids, we have effectively destroyed it. I don’t accept the “we” here. Who did what exactly to “destroy” it? And thanks to supply/demand, it's now expected for both spouses to work if you want a r…

> That’s true whether that $200k/year comes from one earner or two. In fact, if it comes from one earner you are a little better off tax-wise (because of the social security cap.) Wait. What? Where are you that does not have tax brackets? Is that common in the US? In Australia you are substantially penalised for being a household that draws all your income from one person. It's not even close. And it's infuriating. O…

[deleted]

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#656

Post by dazaidesu »

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…

Maybe it is a full time job. And maybe this is where the atomic family unit breaks apart. Maybe we need communal child rearing efforts.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#657

Post by rayiner »

kaitai wrote: post #631
rayiner wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you’re really that into high pressure job and grinding the ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a sahm ? You can’t do everything at once. No one is stopping you from raising children but yourself. Many don’t go for the business route and that’s a respectable choice but of course you can’t have it all. If in the end your fertility is more important than your career then have kids without ma…

I don't disagree with your larger point, rayiner, about "figur[ing] out a way to allow women to have careers and also children". But I agree with the GP poster (hycaria) that the top poster (astan?) creates a false dichotomy, that one must either have a high pressure grinding 100-hr-week job or be a SAHM, which are certainly mutually exclusive. Many of us do just work 40-50 hours per week. Further improvements in wor…

I agree 100%. We shouldn't create a dichotomy, we should figure out ways to enable people to do both.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#658

Post by spenczar5 »

thwarted wrote: post #592
spenczar5 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The claim that I think is "extraordinary" is that a focus on specifically income is found in "every culture on the planet."

Is this really true of the Sentinelese, an indigenous culture in the Indian ocean? Maybe if we define "income" in some funny way. There's a long history of "big man" cultures in anthropology, wherein authority and persuasion are more important that direct "income."

But, then, "income" is so tied to the modern capitalist framework that it's hard to even talk about this sort of thing, which is really my main point.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#659

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #653
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s true whether that $200k/year comes from one earner or two. In fact, if it comes from one earner you are a little better off tax-wise (because of the social security cap.) Wait. What? Where are you that does not have tax brackets? Is that common in the US? In Australia you are substantially penalised for being a household that draws all your income from one person. It's not even close. And it's infuriating. O…

In the US they have the concept of filing jointly. If you have one partner earning a lot more than the other then you can get tax bracket advantages of both when you pool your incomes together.

Interesting. I knew some countries in Europe had joint filing. I was unaware that the US did.

Does anyone know what the requirements are for the non-working individual to be considered for joint filing?

Say if you're on a working visa, but your spouse is not, presumably you don't get the tax benefits?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#660

Post by kseifried »

lhorie wrote: post #618
john_moscow wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> raising kids [...] is a full-time job Here's a contrary (and possibly even more unpopular) thought: some say spending inordinate amounts of time on child rearing is "doing it wrong". Some groups (orthodox jewish, for example) will argue that many parents helicopter too much to compensate for a lack of educational focus due to not having a well-established ethics framework to guide them. Part of that narrative is ob…

And that's great until you have a kid with special needs like autism. Some kids need parenting that involves a lot of direct hours being put in. Raising kids is not a "one size fits all" kind of deal.
Post reply on HN