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

691–700 of 770 posts

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#691

Post by Dracophoenix »

tomcam wrote: post #427
andrepd wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to sound like an extremist but this is what happens when everything in life is mercantilised. Money becomes king.

Big capitalist here. I agree completely. The reason I'm a millionaire instead of a billionaire is that my first priority was always to have a stable family and marriage. I noticed all the billionaires seemed to go through a few wives before settling down. Didn't like what that did to the children, or what I imagined it might have done. This kept me out of SV (and in much more, at the time, stable and family oriented…

Have you considered that going through wives might have more to do with how divorcing HNW individuals is a perverse incentive created by the legal system rather than a fault of the individuals in question? In your marriage, how do you hedge against that?

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#692

Post by drakonka »

wwww4alll wrote: post #363
drakonka wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please go out and meet people, men, women, in real life. That's horrible advice, we're in a pandemic. But when it's over I would highly suggest taking your own advice. If you are really discussing in good faith and genuinely have never met or heard of a person who has chosen to go through life without having kids, to the point of legitimately not believing that such people even exist, it sounds like your world has…

Deflecting reality is not going to make it less real. You exist because your parents make babies. All these so called people that claim they don’t want kids exist, because their parents make babies. Men and women make babies, because it is core biological drive in reality. No amount of rationalization will change reality. Reality will bite people on their butt, one way or another. Biological drive will overcome any b…

We have everything from published papers to anecdotal accounts/lived experiences about people who chose not to have children. Completely denying that such people exist seems borderline delusional. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X2094990...

It really does not sound like you are even trying to make any kind of legitimate argument and are just trolling at this point, I'm convinced this is a case of willful ignorance. So I'll leave this comment thread here; have a nice day.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#693

Post by drakonka »

cutemonster wrote: post #452
drakonka wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in some places society does work with this at least reasonably well, at least from the perspective of employees - I'm sure this is harder for startup founders. But I think that startup founders are in the minority, whereas the child-raising discourse usually touches on all kinds of professionals, including normal employees. Where I live it is common for both parents to take long stretches of leave to be with…

What's a TD? > The replacement producer was simply moved to work on another project. I wonder about the theoretical situation when the replacement did a significantly better job, and you needed just one person for that job role. Then, I wonder if there could be some resentment when the original less talented person returns and "kicks out" the more talented one. Maybe a solution is to not be too attached to the compan…

> What's a TD?

TD = Technical Director

Yeah, our replacement producer was great! She was great enough to go straight to just leading a different project. I did not sense any resentment or disruption in our original producer coming back though, and she was also great. Of course there was a proper handover etc as well. I think when you assume competence all around and hire competent people this becomes largely a non-issue to be honest.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#694

Post by TuringTest »

vbtemp wrote: post #379
LeonardMenard wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. I am disappointed (but not sneering nor contemptuous) when I find out that another one of my well-educated and ambitious female peers has decided to become a stay-at-home mom. Not because I don't think it's a valuable or valid role to play, but because I have absolutely zero equivalent male peers who have done the same thing. Another well-educated women who choose to give up her career and stay at home,…

All of the time when I hear that commentary, it has to do with them finding stay-at-home moms unintelligent, petty, vapid.

You're literally replying to a post not following that pattern. This "all of the time" is uncalled for.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#695

Post by Dracophoenix »

gnicholas wrote: post #422
irae wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work on their next book. I was under the impression people had kids to build a family together, not to compete with their partners for achievements. I don't think at all the situation you described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge step forward. You know what is better then a new father stressed at work, absent from home, worried his career…

> I was under the impression people had kids to build a family together, not to compete with their partners for achievements. I don't think at all the situation you described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge step forward. I wasn't indicating that the spouses were in any way competing with each other. I was pointing out the inequity that results among professors who are fathers and their colleagues who a…

So your solution to these iniquities is to punish potential success by sex through the denial of equal treatment in child-related leave? Leave alone the fact that this would be illegal discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, how would this work for non-heterosexual relationships? Wouldn't non-childbearing lesbian professors also have this advantage while their SO is nursing their newborn? Ultimately, your solution seems more pro-natalist to a fault rather than "pro-equity".

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#696

Post by ay »

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…

Any communities with a strong framework. Case in point: Soviet Union. Though arguably a strong collective ideology and a religion aren’t that far off from each other.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#697

Post by anchochilis »

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…

> Instead, we talk about how sexism is the biggest problem. Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that creates a genuine barrier for women.

This is something I've heard a lot of talented young women say at the beginning of their careers. With all due respect... give it a few years.

Sexism plays out in really subtle ways, often unconsciously. After a while though you start to notice patterns: who is hired and promoted, who is mentored and fast-tracked, which people are given high-profile projects and which aren't, who is noticed by leadership and who isn't.

You'll also become more aware of aggregate effects. I.e., "because boss at company X mentored me, I was able to get a senior position at company Y, which paved the way to my current job at fast-growing company Z."

That said, as an individual woman in the industry, devoting much energy to thinking about sexism is a losing game. In fact I think it's better to pretend it doesn't exist and focus on what you can control: the quality of your work, your skills, relationships with coworkers, and so on.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#698

Post by csomar »

adwn wrote: post #688
arvinsim wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ironic thing is that the earliest programmers are women. I think I saw or read that the reason why there is such a gender disparity in programming is because programming was marketed as a male-oriented activity in the 80's. Sadly, I can't find the source for that anymore.

> The ironic thing is that the earliest programmers are women. That's not correct, or at least, very misleading. The "programming" which you're refering to, would be more precisely called "data entry" using today's terminology. The actual software development was done mostly by men, even back then. In the 60s/70s, when computers increasingly had proper input methods (screen and keyboard), the data entry part was swal…

> The "programming" which you're refering to, would be more precisely called "data entry" using today's terminology.

Most programmers today are in the "data entry" business from Stackoverflow...

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#699

Post by arvinsim »

azundo wrote: post #673
arvinsim wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ironic thing is that the earliest programmers are women. I think I saw or read that the reason why there is such a gender disparity in programming is because programming was marketed as a male-oriented activity in the 80's. Sadly, I can't find the source for that anymore.

I heard it on planet money a few years ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...

Thanks, yes this is the source.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#700

Post by jxramos »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #622
barrkel wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have advantageous mutations in two parallel family trees, sexual reproduction permits them to join into a single tree while asexual (splitting) doesn't. There's a similar effect for eliminating harmful mutations that coincide with beneficial mutations. It's more complex in practice for bacteria - there can be DNA transmitted horizontally - but bacteria usually win out by sheer numbers.

Another advantage is that a population that doesn't consist of clones is more resistant to diseases. With regards to "why separate sexes? why two?", the technical reason is mitochondria, the "cells" within our cells: you don't want the copies from one parent to fight with copies from another parent. The standard solution for the multicellular organisms is that only one parent provides mitochondria, the other does not…

Whoa, does this suggest something very sensitive, unstable, and delicate about mitochondria that their preservation must be highly conservative otherwise it could not be a steadily observed thing? How exactly would a fight ensue for the coding of a mitochondria? Are those organelles even created by ribosomes? How exactly are those things synthesized anyways?
Post reply on HN