3 ms·

I get that humans should have kids, and obviously it's terrible (and should be fixed) whenever kids are neglected. We should have (more, better) programs for th

by brhsiao 10y ago

I get that humans should have kids, and obviously it's terrible (and should be fixed) whenever kids are neglected. We should have (more, better) programs for this. But why does it fall on companies to create an "environment" that treats people with kids the same way when in fact their circumstances are different? During the YC/Thiel thing, I saw someone cite "I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children, or was likely to have them soon", as an example of a morally outrageous statement. But surely people with small kids are more preoccupied?

tunah2 10y ago
Because kids do better when their parents take care of them, and "programs" can't replace this. Companies have to help out because they're part of society. In exchange they get to do things like limit their liability and collectively enter into contracts.
snowwrestler 10y ago
There seems to be this amazing doublethink in Silicon Valley where people convince themselves that their startup is going to make the world a better place in some huge disruptive way, while arguing that companies have no responsibility to make the world a better place in small, normal, achievable ways, like setting family-friendly policies. Silicon Valley startups are apparently so powerful that they will fundamentally disrupt and reshape society, but also so fragile that having some women with kids on staff will cause total mission failure.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > having some women with kids on staff will cause total mission failure hyperbole
balls187 10y ago
> But why does it fall on companies to create an "environment" that treats people with kids the same way when in fact their circumstances are different? In the US. It doesn't. The Federal Government mandates every eligible employee gets 12 weeks leave to deal with certain "family" related issues: * Taking are of yourself, your spouse, your parent, a new child In countries like Sweden, the government mandates that parents can take up to 480 days paid leave per child. As others have posted, for tech companies, they are doing it to remain competitive. More recently, companies like MSFT, Netflix, Facebook have started to offer paid paternity leave, as employee incentives. Put it this way, if my company did not make concessions for parents, we would leave and find jobs else where. That would make the jobs of all employees that are left that much harder, and in all likelihood, cause the company to fail. > "I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children, or was likely to have them soon", as an example of a morally outrageous statement. But surely people with small kids are more preoccupied? Is there evidence that startups with female co-founders with small children fail more, less, or about average? What if that family had a nanny (like I do), or the spouse was planning on staying at home? There are women who have small children, work full time, and attend night school. If they can do that, then certainly they can start a company. Personally, with a young baby, I much prefer the stability and predictability of an established company, to that of being a co-founder, or very early employee of a startup.

by brhsiao 10y ago

tunah2 10y ago

Because kids do better when their parents take care of them, and "programs" can't replace this. Companies have to help out because they're part of society. In exchange they get to do things like limit their liability and collectively enter into contracts.

snowwrestler 10y ago

There seems to be this amazing doublethink in Silicon Valley where people convince themselves that their startup is going to make the world a better place in some huge disruptive way, while arguing that companies have no responsibility to make the world a better place in small, normal, achievable ways, like setting family-friendly policies. Silicon Valley startups are apparently so powerful that they will fundamentally disrupt and reshape society, but also so fragile that having some women with kids on staff will cause total mission failure.

Chris2048 10y ago
> having some women with kids on staff will cause total mission failure hyperbole

balls187 10y ago

> But why does it fall on companies to create an "environment" that treats people with kids the same way when in fact their circumstances are different? In the US. It doesn't. The Federal Government mandates every eligible employee gets 12 weeks leave to deal with certain "family" related issues: * Taking are of yourself, your spouse, your parent, a new child In countries like Sweden, the government mandates that parents can take up to 480 days paid leave per child. As others have posted, for tech companies, they are doing it to remain competitive. More recently, companies like MSFT, Netflix, Facebook have started to offer paid paternity leave, as employee incentives. Put it this way, if my company did not make concessions for parents, we would leave and find jobs else where. That would make the jobs of all employees that are left that much harder, and in all likelihood, cause the company to fail. > "I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children, or was likely to have them soon", as an example of a morally outrageous statement. But surely people with small kids are more preoccupied? Is there evidence that startups with female co-founders with small children fail more, less, or about average? What if that family had a nanny (like I do), or the spouse was planning on staying at home? There are women who have small children, work full time, and attend night school. If they can do that, then certainly they can start a company. Personally, with a young baby, I much prefer the stability and predictability of an established company, to that of being a co-founder, or very early employee of a startup.