Female Founder Secrets: Fertility • Hacker News Board

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#731

Post by bumby » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #612

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…

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…

There’s also a theory that the larger proportion of women in the workplace post-1960s exacerbated this. By increasing the supply of employees, it drove down wages to a point where a single-income household is out of reach for most in the current structure. So even if they wanted to stay home, they can’t because their spouse isn’t likely to earn enough to support the household alone financially.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#732

Post by Benjamin_Dobell » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

nmfisher wrote: post #730

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…

Unless you have kids, which then opens up another world of benefits. The married, childless middle class really does get a bit screwed when it comes to taxes.

If we're still talking about Australia, there is no Family Tax Benefit for a single income provider earning above $104,281. It tapers off as you approach that.

As a general rule the Australian Government make it very difficult for families to have a stay-at-home carer. It's substantially more viable (monetarily speaking) for most families to send their kids to daycare, which is Government supported, and both work.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#733

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

souprock wrote: post #625

wayoutthere wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing this would require raising wages to the point where a single income can support a family. Until that’s the case, both parents have to work unless you’re wealthy (not a high earner; actually wealthy). I would just ask yourself who in society benefits from this situation and who loses. It doesn’t have to be this way, but we keep electing politicians who promise to keep it this way (on both sides of the aisle). I…

That clearly isn't the financial situation in the USA. Here I am, a software developer, supporting a family of 14 on a single income. I'm definitely not wealthy. I couldn't do that in Manhattan of course, so I don't live in Manhattan.

[deleted]

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#734

Post by jvvw » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:28 PM 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…

I think that depending on age of the children, it's actually about a half-time job.

This puts you in an awkward position - it is really hard to get a half-time job, or at least a good half-time job - even if you can find one, you have almost certainly killed long-term career prospects because employers generally prefer full-term employees. And there is no point screwing up both of your careers by both going slightly part-time, so you easily end up in a rather awkward situation of either outsourcing a lot of parenting work that isn't ideally outsourced, or one of you giving up their career.

It is usually the person earning less who makes that sacrifice, so even a fairly small income disparity turns into a huge one.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#735

Post by pc86 » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #639

pc86 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's zero legitimate reason to gender parental leave either way. Not because "muh equality" or sexism or anything like that, but it should be "new kid == n weeks leave," whether you're the biological mother, father, adoptive parent, had a biological child via surrogate, whatever.

Gotta disagree. Bleeding, bleeding, bleeding, tears, pelvic instability, trouble pooping, breast milk coming in, mastitis, difficulty walking for several weeks, hormonal changes to sleep ability. People who give birth need time to physically heal. Some have an easy time, others are still shuffling around in mesh underpants with witch hazel and aloe soaked hygiene pads at four weeks post birth. (Search for padsicle to…

All the more reason to have equal leave so they can be looked after while recuperating. If you're suggesting giving new fathers less "approved/acceptable" time off, you're telling mother who have these complications that they're going to have to fend for themselves. Imagine telling someone with a 4th degree tear (don't Google this) that they have to deal with everything around that, as well as a newborn, alone for 8-10 hours a day.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#736

Post by pc86 » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

hksh wrote: post #284

pc86 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's zero legitimate reason to gender parental leave either way. Not because "muh equality" or sexism or anything like that, but it should be "new kid == n weeks leave," whether you're the biological mother, father, adoptive parent, had a biological child via surrogate, whatever.

Totally agree. I experienced a variation on that and learned pregnancy is not a vector space. My wife carried twins so when I asked about the "new kid == n weeks of leave" it was _not_ multiplicative. I only got n and not 2n. Boo.

If they were your first two you should've gotten n^2 :)

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#737

Post by hksh » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #293

hksh wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with much of what you say except that "women have different needs". I would say each person has different needs and to divide into the male/female binary is a fairly restrictive definition of gender as I have come to understand it. My wife and I have twins a little less than 2 years old, we are both ~35, but we live in rural-ish NH not SV. She has taken the last 2+ years off for the pregnancy and to function…

> The point I am making is that kind of gender bifurcation doesn't fit the mold that I (a cis-gendered, white man) fit so I find it less plausible that a less-represented person would match it either as my "group" [more accurate term requested] has largely set the social norms. I don’t understand this conclusion at all. You just described a fairly standard situation, and then said trying to apply historical understan…

Fair point. You are totally right that my description of myself aligns with historical understandings of gender. I was failed to be explicit about my inclusion of my experience of our work/domestic/(implicit and explicit) power balance in my usage. That I "don't feel like I fit" traditional roles definitely contains bias as that is also the view I would like to have of myself.

The reason we appear to have the 1950s responsibility split is my wife sold her business (not HN-levels of success, hence me keeping my job) concurrent with discovering she was pregnant. She didn't have the next thing lined up so she has decided to enjoy being a full-time mother. When she finds the right fit there is a good chance that I will jump to being a full-time parent to support her career aspirations from the domestic side. Presently I do 5 hours of childcare on a normal workday (0600-0900[alone], 1700-1900[with wife]). I would far prefer to do 10 (the entirety of their waking hours).

> To me the issue has always been allowing other to define success for you.

I still find it embarrassingly easy to fall subject to "keeping up with the Jonses" thinking. I hope that ends as some point as I don't want to pass that on to my kids the way it was to me. It sounds like you have gotten over this hurdle so I would definitely like to hear how you did it.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#738

Post by bopbeepboop » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

necovek wrote: post #719

bopbeepboop wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Raising 3 kids while at the same time completing undergrad studies in 6 years: I think you are missing some real-life experience to support that conjecture (I see you are adding 2 years on top of the standard 4 year undergrad program, so you are obviously trying). I imagine you are not a mainly stay-at-home parent who did that, let alone one who went to University at the same time. But even if you are, some kids are…

I’m not sure I agree, particularly with the last sentence — but I wanted to let you know I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

Have a good one!

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#739

Post by hksh » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #345

hksh wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with much of what you say except that "women have different needs". I would say each person has different needs and to divide into the male/female binary is a fairly restrictive definition of gender as I have come to understand it. My wife and I have twins a little less than 2 years old, we are both ~35, but we live in rural-ish NH not SV. She has taken the last 2+ years off for the pregnancy and to function…

"Women have different needs" is both extremely accurate and extremely predictive. Taking issue with the statement because it's not perfectly correct 100% of the time is, at best, exceedingly pedantic.

I should have used the full statement "...and desires" as it is the desires part that I quibble with the most.

If you are mean predictive from the perspective of big data, e.g. differences in search term rates of those that identify as men vs those that identify as women (in as much as search terms represent the modern capture of an individual's needs), maybe. I can believe without presented evidence that there is positive predictive power there and that it is currently being used/exploited.

It is worth calling out that is reductive with the hope that it will trigger a shift in language used to be more inclusive.

Re: Female Founder Secrets: Fertility

#740

Post by JPKab » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 8:50 PM UTC

spenczar5 wrote: post #658

thwarted wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Income" is just a proxy for providing resources.

It's simply unreasonable to assume that the Sentinelese men who are best at procuring food/resources/etc aren't more desirable than their peers. Social status is likely a factor as well.

Authority is often derived in tribal cultures from being the best hunter/warrior, or being the son of the best fighter if the tribe has a monarchal structure of leadership transfer.

Not that any of us know, because the Sentanalese will kill us on site as trespassers if we show up on their islands.