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

661–670 of 770 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#661

Post by EdwardDiego »

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…

Same in NZ, it'd be nice if income splitting were allowed but no-one seems interested in it.

Instead we offer rather large tax rebates to people with children instead.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#662

Post by closeparen »

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…

Why would 24x7 contact with the mother and no one else be "the best care" for the kid?

Who says it's not a part time job for two people?

Who says our ability to cooperate in groups, the key to our success in practically every area, would skip this one?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#663

Post by tjs8rj »

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.

Where are you getting this from? What you’re talking about is a symptom, not a cause.

While the issue is still hotly debated, the biggest causes for inequality and wage stagnation since the 1980s in order of impact is: skill-biased technological change (tech favoring skilled workers and amplifying their output, network effects, winner take all economics), globalization and offshoring, and China.

For comparison, the rise of China alone is believed to account for the loss of 20%+ of the manufacturing sector. Income taxes across the board are inequality decreasing in their effect.

I agree that more distribution is better for societal welfare, but “not taxing the rich enough” isn’t the cause of inequality

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#664

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #649
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…

It's a demanding and important job, no doubt, but it's not a full time job over the entire working life of a parent. The norm throughout history--and even today in traditional societies practicing subsistence agriculture--has been for both spouses to "work."

[deleted]

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#665

Post by codyb »

kseifried wrote: post #660
lhorie wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Should we plan for the special needs children though? I mean, certainly, reprioritizing when you have one makes a lot of sense, and we should as a society invest to make sure these children lead fulfilling lives.

But... bringing up special needs kids seems a bit disingenuous as a point when they're, I believe, a small minority of all children no?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#666

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #649
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…

It's a demanding and important job, no doubt, but it's not a full time job over the entire working life of a parent. The norm throughout history--and even today in traditional societies practicing subsistence agriculture--has been for both spouses to "work."

[deleted]

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#667

Post by lotsofpulp »

d1zzy wrote: post #587
lotsofpulp wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today. I'm not aware of any stigma from women being stay at home moms. My impression is that most, if not all, people are aware that money gives you power (or freedom, if you will). And who doesn't like freedom. There's also less security of income for everyone, so a household relying on one spouse's in…

> Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal. I think that's a fair thing to say but one of many's life unfair situations. I've seen some people put so much effort/work into homemaking that goes beyond of most people I know put into their jobs.

Some people put more effort/work at community college than CalTech too, but when people don’t have all of the information and you’re making guesses based on probability, people use shortcuts like assigning probability of one’s motivations, work ethic, capabilities, etc based on the school they went, the employers they worked for, the jobs they’ve held, the fitness they’re in, etc.

One of those things these days, for better or for worse, happens to be the type of work you get after college.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#668

Post by Proziam »

Chris2048 wrote: post #629
sbierwagen wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> This would require that culture, broadly, stop believing women need to have a formal job No it doesn't, the gender imbalance in one industry can cancel out over all industries.

I think the point the commenter above was making was this:

"If women cannot work while simultaneously having/raising children there will always be at least a slight difference in the amount of men vs women in the workforce."

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#669

Post by tjs8rj »

nostrademons wrote: post #591
sbierwagen wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ci…

I think the general demographic thesis on human population peaking relatively soon is that it comes from people voluntarily having fewer kids as conditions improve a la the demographic transition model. There’s no expectation that we hit earths carrying capacity

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#670

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

codyb wrote: post #665
kseifried wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Should we plan for the special needs children though? I mean, certainly, reprioritizing when you have one makes a lot of sense, and we should as a society invest to make sure these children lead fulfilling lives. But... bringing up special needs kids seems a bit disingenuous as a point when they're, I believe, a small minority of all children no?

There are a lot more people with "special needs" than people think.

In Australia, the (reported) rate of Autism in the general population is 0.7%. That's pretty huge, over 170,000 people. That's Autism alone.

My daughter for example has Type 1 Diabetes. It's much rarer than Autism. However, when you start adding all these up, it's significant.

Post reply on HN