4 ms·

I don't know the author, or her life circumstances, but to believe that 'Because in my head, I can’t imagine a scenario where you trust someone with millions of

I don't know the author, or her life circumstances, but to believe that 'Because in my head, I can’t imagine a scenario where you trust someone with millions of dollars to run a business but think that they don’t know how to deal with childcare.' Is just sexism is idiotic. It isn't the childcare itself, is the pregnancy and the 1st year that is the 'problem'. Women can and are as good entrepreneurs as men, but if for a second you think (exceptions excluded) women, during pregnancy and first months of a newborn can run a business without sacrificing something you must never been around that scenario. And if I was going to put a million dollars in your business and there is even a 5% chance you may end up pregnant, it will indeed be a minus in my book (as an investment though) You either sacrifice the health of your baby with long nights, long working hours, stress, etc, or you sacrifice the company when you take those 2-3 days because morning sickness or tiredness don't allow you to be on your best. Is it unfair? Yes, very, but pregnancy and breastfeeding is something that takes a toll on women and no matter what a partner tries to do to help, he can't really carry the baby in is belly or start producing milk. Think of it this way, if the entrepreneur was a man, it would be akin to asking how he would expect to keep focusing on their sports career (5+ hours practise a day) and running a VC-based startup.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 11y ago
Good point, however all of this only holds in the American west coast bizzarro world where the only way to build a successful company is to work 80 hours a week, not sleep, and ruin all your relationships. There are plenty of examples of companies where sane working hours are the norm (irrespective of founder gender) and in those companies, the impact of a single founder/manager being less available/dependable for a while is also smaller. Of course, there's a pretty large class of VCs that will only fund founders who're willing to go 100% kamikaze just for a spot on their power law curve, and your argument holds for them. But I know where I'd want my money from.
- blablablame 11y ago
  It's not even that. Stress (and being a founder is a very stressful time) is a very big no-no during pregnancy and can influence the gene expression of the baby. But Even sane working hours are a problem. Here is a bit of a cognitive dissonance for the folks here at HN to ponder. I'm pretty sure you support maternity leave and even a leave on the last few weeks of pregnancy right (I do)? If that is the case, why? If you believe being pregnant/childcare (lets say only first 3 months) isn't a big hurdle and a job onto itself and as someone pointed below, a women may even work harder while pregnant, why support the maternity leave?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    It's not dissonant. Maternity leave is a right that one can take. Having a right doesn't mean everyone must be expected to use it to the fullest - some people prefer to do so, others don't. Of course, we might have to mandate them for non-self-employed workers, since bosses are often shitty enough to penalize someone for using their rights, but barring that, it's their life.
  - CatDevURandom 11y ago
    > Stress (and being a founder is a very stressful time) is a very big no-no during pregnancy and can influence the gene expression of the baby. [citation needed] "Systematic reviews have generally concluded that standard working conditions present little hazard to maternal or child health. A woman with an uncomplicated pregnancy who is employed where there are no greater potential hazards than those encountered in routine daily life may continue to work without interruption until the onset of labor." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23472500 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23472500 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22355087 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22355087 "Psychosocial work stress (high demands and low control) was not associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations in a population-based cohort study" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24593253 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24593253
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- blablablame 11y ago
  And ask any doctor if what they did is the very best for their kid. The stress, the lack of bonding, the (I assume by 100+ hours a week) bottle feeding from the first few days. If you can do it, sure, if you can have it all (as in, do the best for your career and the best for your newborn), I have my doubts. Pretty sure the single mothers with two jobs also do it, doesn't mean it is the optimal way to have a child. ps: won't edit the parent post, but by exceptions I meant outliers... sorry, not native speaker.
gemma 11y ago
> if for a second you think (exceptions excluded) women, during pregnancy and first months of a newborn can run a business without sacrificing something I'm not an entrepreneur, but isn't sacrificing something part of the deal, regardless of gender or life circumstances? If you're launching a startup and trying to get VC funding, doesn't it go without saying that you're sacrificing things to that goal? If that's the case, isn't the real problem that VCs are more comfortable with a man sacrificing his physical/mental health, family relationships, material belongings, retirement savings, etc. than with a woman sacrificing the same things? Or put another way, will VCs believe that a woman entrepreneur can balance her sacrifices against the good of her company as well as a man can balance his?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

skrebbel 11y ago

Good point, however all of this only holds in the American west coast bizzarro world where the only way to build a successful company is to work 80 hours a week, not sleep, and ruin all your relationships. There are plenty of examples of companies where sane working hours are the norm (irrespective of founder gender) and in those companies, the impact of a single founder/manager being less available/dependable for a while is also smaller. Of course, there's a pretty large class of VCs that will only fund founders who're willing to go 100% kamikaze just for a spot on their power law curve, and your argument holds for them. But I know where I'd want my money from.

blablablame 11y ago
It's not even that. Stress (and being a founder is a very stressful time) is a very big no-no during pregnancy and can influence the gene expression of the baby. But Even sane working hours are a problem. Here is a bit of a cognitive dissonance for the folks here at HN to ponder. I'm pretty sure you support maternity leave and even a leave on the last few weeks of pregnancy right (I do)? If that is the case, why? If you believe being pregnant/childcare (lets say only first 3 months) isn't a big hurdle and a job onto itself and as someone pointed below, a women may even work harder while pregnant, why support the maternity leave?
- icebraining 11y ago
  It's not dissonant. Maternity leave is a right that one can take. Having a right doesn't mean everyone must be expected to use it to the fullest - some people prefer to do so, others don't. Of course, we might have to mandate them for non-self-employed workers, since bosses are often shitty enough to penalize someone for using their rights, but barring that, it's their life.
- CatDevURandom 11y ago
  > Stress (and being a founder is a very stressful time) is a very big no-no during pregnancy and can influence the gene expression of the baby. [citation needed] "Systematic reviews have generally concluded that standard working conditions present little hazard to maternal or child health. A woman with an uncomplicated pregnancy who is employed where there are no greater potential hazards than those encountered in routine daily life may continue to work without interruption until the onset of labor." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23472500 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23472500 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22355087 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22355087 "Psychosocial work stress (high demands and low control) was not associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations in a population-based cohort study" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24593253 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24593253

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

blablablame 11y ago
And ask any doctor if what they did is the very best for their kid. The stress, the lack of bonding, the (I assume by 100+ hours a week) bottle feeding from the first few days. If you can do it, sure, if you can have it all (as in, do the best for your career and the best for your newborn), I have my doubts. Pretty sure the single mothers with two jobs also do it, doesn't mean it is the optimal way to have a child. ps: won't edit the parent post, but by exceptions I meant outliers... sorry, not native speaker.

gemma 11y ago

> if for a second you think (exceptions excluded) women, during pregnancy and first months of a newborn can run a business without sacrificing something I'm not an entrepreneur, but isn't sacrificing something part of the deal, regardless of gender or life circumstances? If you're launching a startup and trying to get VC funding, doesn't it go without saying that you're sacrificing things to that goal? If that's the case, isn't the real problem that VCs are more comfortable with a man sacrificing his physical/mental health, family relationships, material belongings, retirement savings, etc. than with a woman sacrificing the same things? Or put another way, will VCs believe that a woman entrepreneur can balance her sacrifices against the good of her company as well as a man can balance his?