8 ms·

Interesting point. Hard to discuss too, because as always with women-related issues the heat is pretty high. However, let's play devil's advocate and extend it

Interesting point. Hard to discuss too, because as always with women-related issues the heat is pretty high. However, let's play devil's advocate and extend it to the man's case too. If I put myself in the role of a VC I would think twice about hiring anybody who's going to have children soon. Children, from what I gathered, are emotionally and physically draining for both parents. If you add up the challenges of having a startup, which is like another child well that's a good damn reason to refuse investing. The problem is that pregnancy and a child coming soon can be physically seen on a woman, but we can't ask a VC to be blind on that.

mattmanser 14y ago
What point do you draw the line? Say a woman entrepreneur got married a year ago and it's getting to be 'about that time'. The inlaws are asking when they're going to hear the patter of tiny feet? Or what if you hear a couple saying 'they're trying for a child'? Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. It rapidly turns into sexism. So she's going to have to take a while off. She'll have some hormone stuff to deal with. What do you know about that couple? Maybe Dad's going to be the one changing the diapers and getting up at 3. What right do you have to judge? The whole point is that life goes on and constantly discriminating against women because of this is just wrong. The point is that she thinks she can handle it, she thinks her team can handle the slack, she's putting her ass on the line. Fair enough, go for it.
- ITSABUBBLEGUYS 14y ago
  it's not everyone discriminating against her, its a VC deciding whether he should make a multi million dollar bet on her. startups are hard.
- grannyg00se 14y ago
  victork2 mentioned "anybody" having children and "both parents". I think it's clear that anybody who will have to deal with a new baby is going to be under additional stress. And the party becoming pregnant is going to be under even more stress. It is reasonable for those stress factors to be taken into consideration if you're making a decision about a person's likelihood for success. You can't simply ignore those facts for fear of being labeled a sexist, or anti-family, or something like that. Reality has a way of ignoring what is politically correct.
  - eropple 14y ago
    > victork2 mentioned "anybody" having children and "both parents". That's great, but the practical reality is that you're unlikely to see a male founder asked anything similar, or be judged based on it. There's still a societal conception that "the woman will take care of the kids," so the new-child flak that would potentially make a founder look worse doesn't necessarily affect potential male founders to the same degree. It still boils down to a male-privilege issue (I mean, like the story said, have you ever heard of somebody claiming that an expectant father being likely to cause his company to fail?). (Aside: the story sucks and is misleading, however, because a VC did fund her project. Good for both of them. I hope they kick ass.)
    - Tichy 14y ago
      It's difficult for men to breastfeed the kids, that is one of the problems... And why is it not a female-privilege issue? How many jobs are so great that they are preferable to taking care of your own kids?
      - bartonfink 14y ago
        I can say with absolute certainty that if my wife could bring home the same salary as I do, I would trade places with her in a heartbeat and be a stay-at-home dad. It's not even a ? in my mind.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. The only difference is that with a hiring decision, the law demands the hiring manager should ignore the risks to the business. In aggregate, this is a transfer of wealth from shareholders to pregnant women (in practice, childless women are also harmed [1]). What right do you have to judge? The VC has not only the right to determine how his fund's money is spent, but also the responsibility to do so in order to maximize returns. As long as P(big success | funds preggo) < P(big success | funds slightly less awesome non-preggo), it is the VC's responsibility to choose the non-pregnant person. He would be throwing away his client's money otherwise. [1] In practice the biggest losers seem to be childless women since the market for hiring women becomes a lemon market. Employers are not able to differentiate lemons from cherries and wind up paying all sellers less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
  - rwallace 14y ago
    > The VC has not only the right to determine how his fund's money is spent, but also the responsibility to do so in order to maximize returns. That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that societies that tolerate an ethos that maximizes return on financial capital at the cost of burning human capital, are going to end up in evolution's recycle bin, to be replaced by societies that don't. And part of the point of ethics is to find solutions less cruel and drastic than waiting for evolution to solve problems for us.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      How is human capital burned by funding the person most likely to succeed?
      - rwallace 14y ago
        It's burned by creating an atmosphere in which people get to thinking they need to start a company instead of having children. (Or thinking they'll have children "later" which typically amounts to the same thing - "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans".)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Tichy 14y ago
  I don't think it is sexism at all to take basic statistics about people's lives into account.
  - WalterSear 14y ago
    It's sexist to put aside those considerations due to gender politics.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      I don't follow?
- jlarocco 14y ago
  > The point is that she thinks she can handle it, she thinks her team can handle the slack, she's putting her ass on the line. Fair enough, go for it. There's no obligation for anybody else to put their ass on the line along with her. If she thinks she can do it, then more power to her. But if I think she's unlikely to succeed, she's not getting my money, pregnant or not.
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    So you're just going to disregard the entire point of the article in your comment?
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      Most of the article seemed to be pointing out that she could do it, regardless of what the VC thinks. Or did you mean the "nobody questions an expecting father's ability to work" part? I just don't think it's true. If I were going to invest money in a small business run by a man expecting a child, I'd question whether he'd be able to handle both running a business and having a baby. Unless I missed it, there's actually no evidence showing the VC from the article wouldn't do the same thing.

mattmanser 14y ago

What point do you draw the line? Say a woman entrepreneur got married a year ago and it's getting to be 'about that time'. The inlaws are asking when they're going to hear the patter of tiny feet? Or what if you hear a couple saying 'they're trying for a child'? Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. It rapidly turns into sexism. So she's going to have to take a while off. She'll have some hormone stuff to deal with. What do you know about that couple? Maybe Dad's going to be the one changing the diapers and getting up at 3. What right do you have to judge? The whole point is that life goes on and constantly discriminating against women because of this is just wrong. The point is that she thinks she can handle it, she thinks her team can handle the slack, she's putting her ass on the line. Fair enough, go for it.

ITSABUBBLEGUYS 14y ago
it's not everyone discriminating against her, its a VC deciding whether he should make a multi million dollar bet on her. startups are hard.
grannyg00se 14y ago
victork2 mentioned "anybody" having children and "both parents". I think it's clear that anybody who will have to deal with a new baby is going to be under additional stress. And the party becoming pregnant is going to be under even more stress. It is reasonable for those stress factors to be taken into consideration if you're making a decision about a person's likelihood for success. You can't simply ignore those facts for fear of being labeled a sexist, or anti-family, or something like that. Reality has a way of ignoring what is politically correct.
- eropple 14y ago
  > victork2 mentioned "anybody" having children and "both parents". That's great, but the practical reality is that you're unlikely to see a male founder asked anything similar, or be judged based on it. There's still a societal conception that "the woman will take care of the kids," so the new-child flak that would potentially make a founder look worse doesn't necessarily affect potential male founders to the same degree. It still boils down to a male-privilege issue (I mean, like the story said, have you ever heard of somebody claiming that an expectant father being likely to cause his company to fail?). (Aside: the story sucks and is misleading, however, because a VC did fund her project. Good for both of them. I hope they kick ass.)
  - Tichy 14y ago
    It's difficult for men to breastfeed the kids, that is one of the problems... And why is it not a female-privilege issue? How many jobs are so great that they are preferable to taking care of your own kids?
    - bartonfink 14y ago
      I can say with absolute certainty that if my wife could bring home the same salary as I do, I would trade places with her in a heartbeat and be a stay-at-home dad. It's not even a ? in my mind.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Do you want to hire someone at this age? What's the difference, they've got the same goals, one is pregnant, one isn't yet. The only difference is that with a hiring decision, the law demands the hiring manager should ignore the risks to the business. In aggregate, this is a transfer of wealth from shareholders to pregnant women (in practice, childless women are also harmed [1]). What right do you have to judge? The VC has not only the right to determine how his fund's money is spent, but also the responsibility to do so in order to maximize returns. As long as P(big success | funds preggo) < P(big success | funds slightly less awesome non-preggo), it is the VC's responsibility to choose the non-pregnant person. He would be throwing away his client's money otherwise. [1] In practice the biggest losers seem to be childless women since the market for hiring women becomes a lemon market. Employers are not able to differentiate lemons from cherries and wind up paying all sellers less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
- rwallace 14y ago
  > The VC has not only the right to determine how his fund's money is spent, but also the responsibility to do so in order to maximize returns. That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that societies that tolerate an ethos that maximizes return on financial capital at the cost of burning human capital, are going to end up in evolution's recycle bin, to be replaced by societies that don't. And part of the point of ethics is to find solutions less cruel and drastic than waiting for evolution to solve problems for us.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    How is human capital burned by funding the person most likely to succeed?
    - rwallace 14y ago
      It's burned by creating an atmosphere in which people get to thinking they need to start a company instead of having children. (Or thinking they'll have children "later" which typically amounts to the same thing - "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans".)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Tichy 14y ago
I don't think it is sexism at all to take basic statistics about people's lives into account.
- WalterSear 14y ago
  It's sexist to put aside those considerations due to gender politics.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    I don't follow?
jlarocco 14y ago
> The point is that she thinks she can handle it, she thinks her team can handle the slack, she's putting her ass on the line. Fair enough, go for it. There's no obligation for anybody else to put their ass on the line along with her. If she thinks she can do it, then more power to her. But if I think she's unlikely to succeed, she's not getting my money, pregnant or not.
- mattmanser 14y ago
  So you're just going to disregard the entire point of the article in your comment?
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    Most of the article seemed to be pointing out that she could do it, regardless of what the VC thinks. Or did you mean the "nobody questions an expecting father's ability to work" part? I just don't think it's true. If I were going to invest money in a small business run by a man expecting a child, I'd question whether he'd be able to handle both running a business and having a baby. Unless I missed it, there's actually no evidence showing the VC from the article wouldn't do the same thing.