7 ms·

I think it's amazing that people would debate whether to fund a company led by a hard-working mother when nobody questions the logic of funding a company run by

I think it's amazing that people would debate whether to fund a company led by a hard-working mother when nobody questions the logic of funding a company run by someone who worships a malevolent invisible sky wizard. Warren Buffett figured out that hiring women was all-win long before most. Kudos to him.

argumentum 13y ago
Why do you say no one would question that logic? If a founder ended his pitch claiming that his startup would succeed because he prayed all the time, I'm pretty sure questions would be in order (along with a polite decline).
- peteforde 13y ago
  Fair point; I don't think we disagree. Essentially I was trying to make the point that as a non-religious individual, it's always wild to me how people can find the time to ponder whether a woman would have the audacity to start a family while building a company, but nobody questions a founder that worships a paranormal creator entity. Lots of people do both, yet somehow it's becoming a mother that is considered crazy. And, I was trying to say it without being an asshole myself.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Yeah, you are assuming that the question was asked by a religious person. There are atheists who would ask the same question. As an example, Dawkins has been called out as a sexist numerous times - often by other atheists like Rebecca Watson and Jen McReight [1][2]. 1. http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-lim... 2. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your...
    - peteforde 13y ago
      Yep - I am not a big Dawkins fan. He does a lot of damage to the image of non-religious people, because he's such a jerk to the people he disagrees with. At least Bill Maher is usually legitimately hilarious in his asshole-ness. Dawkins isn't charming, which distracts from all of the truth in what he's saying. I wish he'd stick to writing stuff down.
  - User8712 13y ago
    I don't think anyone said becoming a mother was considered crazy. It's simply a change in lifestyle, especially if this is their first child. I'd say it's a bigger impact on women, because they need to give birth to the child. If I was invested in a new company, and the founder (male or female) said they're going to be a new parent, I'd be concerned. I think having children is one of the biggest impacts someone can have on their life, both financially and mentally. How is this going to affect the business? Will they have less time to be involved in the project? Are they going to be adverse to risk with the business and prefer to focus on a stable income? Is one parent free to look after the newborn, or is there a chance the founder is going to step down for a while? The statement from the investor was rude, but I have no problem with the viewpoint, and I'd be wary of investing in soon to be parents as well. Religion seems to have a smaller impact, I don't care if you believe in God, the same way I don't care if you like apples or oranges. If it doesn't get in the way of your work, and you seem mentally stable, why should I be concerned? If you suddenly said you have a change in religious beliefs, and you need to exercise a call to prayer every morning for 3 hours, and take the last week of every month off, I'd start to worry. Not because of the beliefs, but because I didn't anticipate this change in your life, and I'm unaware of how you'll handle it along with work.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    As an atheist myself, I don't know what to make of people who say they're religious or believe in god. Are they for real, or are they just saying that for cultural reasons. I don't remember ever believing in anything supernatural (not even santa claus or the tooth fairy), so I can't know whether it's really possible. I find the vast majority of "religious" people aren't really religious, but rather quite agnostic if you question them.
    - mst 13y ago
      The lesswrong Belief In Belief stuff is, I think relevant here. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Belief_in_belief http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Belief_in_belief
    - baddox 13y ago
      I would think that the willingness to suffer or die because of your beliefs is a reasonable piece of evidence that the beliefs are genuine. Obviously that doesn't happen much in the Western world these days, but it certainly has happened a lot throughout history and continues to happen today.
      - argumentum 13y ago
        I agree that they exist, but I don't personally know anyone like that. I'm talking about the average person who says "I'm catholic", "I'm jewish" or "I'm hindu" etc (and are the types of people who usually pitch to VCs). They haven't really questioned their beliefs.
        baddox 13y ago
        I have no idea about the average person, or how you would even measure or quantify what it means to "actually" believe something you claim to believe. I suppose you could say the same thing about any belief system, even empiricism or scientific rationalism. How do you prove that you "actually" believe in anything?
        13y ago
  - baddox 13y ago
    > but nobody questions a founder that worships a paranormal creator entity. Does this really surprise you? I'm not saying it's necessarily justified to question either group's abilities to build a company, but if I had to choose one group where problems would be more likely, I would choose the group that routinely becomes pregnant and raises children, both of which (rightfully so) require a very large portion of the parents' time and attention.
    - argumentum 13y ago
      "routinely becomes pregnant and raises children" What group does that anymore? Other than maybe the aamish, some groups in the middle east and a few mormon sects (in other words, extremely religious and archaic communities).
      - baddox 13y ago
        To be precise, the group routinely has members which become pregnant and raise children. I didn't mean that the group has members which routinely become pregnant and raise children.
        argumentum 13y ago
        I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "routine": a sequence of actions regularly followed; a fixed program. "Is more likely to become .. " or "more commonly becomes" would make more sense. Nonetheless, what you are getting at (treating individuals as members of a group) is precisely the problem. Treat people as individuals, even if you believe expecting mothers to be a bad investment, don't assume every woman is more likely to become pregnant.
        baddox 13y ago
        It also means regular and customary. That's all I meant.
        13y ago
- eli 13y ago
  The founder in the original story did not end her pitch by claiming her business was likely to succeed because she intended to become a mother.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    No, she didn't, and I wasn't commenting about her.
eaurouge 13y ago
Do you think people should question the logic of religious investors investing in companies run by atheist founders? And what does this have to do with the posted topic? Edit: I'm finding it hard reconciling what you said below [0] with what you said above. 0. Yep - I am not a big Dawkins fan. He does a lot of damage to the image of non-religious people, because he's such a jerk to the people he disagrees with.
- peteforde 13y ago
  It's late and I should probably not try to make coherent statements concerning politics and religion after 4am. I've had intelligent religious folks suggest to me that they are shocked I'm not a jerk, because so many of the prominent atheists in popular culture are jerks. Dawkins is a primary offender: he has a hard time answering any question without sounding smug and superior. This is a problem for me because I believe that he's mostly correct in his assertions. However: people don't remember what you say, they remember how they felt after you said it.
  - haberman 13y ago
    > However: people don't remember what you say, they remember how they felt after you said it. This is a great and wise observation.
    - loomio 13y ago
      Here is the full quote: People will forget what you said, People will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
  - argumentum 13y ago
    Interestingly enough, Christopher Hitchens used to say far more inflammatory stuff but didn't really sound smug or superior.
    - rjbwork 13y ago
baddox 13y ago
Ah right. The guy in the article was making an insensitive comment towards the wrong group of people. We shouldn't be insensitive towards women, we should be insensitive towards religious people.
hartie 13y ago
"I think it's amazing that people would debate whether to fund a company led by a hard-working mother when nobody questions the logic of funding a company run by someone who worships a malevolent invisible sky wizard." Yet here you are. Debating.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> "I think it's amazing that people would debate whether to fund a company led by a hard-working mother when nobody questions the logic of funding a company run by someone who worships a malevolent invisible sky wizard." How is that comparison at all valid? Being a mother is obviously going to take up a lot of your time and energy. Startups require a lot of time and energy. Doing both is difficult (although not impossible). Belief in a god is something most people do for an hour on the weekend. It's unlikely to impact the startup at all.

argumentum 13y ago

Why do you say no one would question that logic? If a founder ended his pitch claiming that his startup would succeed because he prayed all the time, I'm pretty sure questions would be in order (along with a polite decline).

peteforde 13y ago
Fair point; I don't think we disagree. Essentially I was trying to make the point that as a non-religious individual, it's always wild to me how people can find the time to ponder whether a woman would have the audacity to start a family while building a company, but nobody questions a founder that worships a paranormal creator entity. Lots of people do both, yet somehow it's becoming a mother that is considered crazy. And, I was trying to say it without being an asshole myself.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Yeah, you are assuming that the question was asked by a religious person. There are atheists who would ask the same question. As an example, Dawkins has been called out as a sexist numerous times - often by other atheists like Rebecca Watson and Jen McReight [1][2]. 1. http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-lim... 2. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/ http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your...
  - peteforde 13y ago
    Yep - I am not a big Dawkins fan. He does a lot of damage to the image of non-religious people, because he's such a jerk to the people he disagrees with. At least Bill Maher is usually legitimately hilarious in his asshole-ness. Dawkins isn't charming, which distracts from all of the truth in what he's saying. I wish he'd stick to writing stuff down.
- User8712 13y ago
  I don't think anyone said becoming a mother was considered crazy. It's simply a change in lifestyle, especially if this is their first child. I'd say it's a bigger impact on women, because they need to give birth to the child. If I was invested in a new company, and the founder (male or female) said they're going to be a new parent, I'd be concerned. I think having children is one of the biggest impacts someone can have on their life, both financially and mentally. How is this going to affect the business? Will they have less time to be involved in the project? Are they going to be adverse to risk with the business and prefer to focus on a stable income? Is one parent free to look after the newborn, or is there a chance the founder is going to step down for a while? The statement from the investor was rude, but I have no problem with the viewpoint, and I'd be wary of investing in soon to be parents as well. Religion seems to have a smaller impact, I don't care if you believe in God, the same way I don't care if you like apples or oranges. If it doesn't get in the way of your work, and you seem mentally stable, why should I be concerned? If you suddenly said you have a change in religious beliefs, and you need to exercise a call to prayer every morning for 3 hours, and take the last week of every month off, I'd start to worry. Not because of the beliefs, but because I didn't anticipate this change in your life, and I'm unaware of how you'll handle it along with work.
- argumentum 13y ago
  As an atheist myself, I don't know what to make of people who say they're religious or believe in god. Are they for real, or are they just saying that for cultural reasons. I don't remember ever believing in anything supernatural (not even santa claus or the tooth fairy), so I can't know whether it's really possible. I find the vast majority of "religious" people aren't really religious, but rather quite agnostic if you question them.
  - mst 13y ago
    The lesswrong Belief In Belief stuff is, I think relevant here. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Belief_in_belief http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Belief_in_belief
  - baddox 13y ago
    I would think that the willingness to suffer or die because of your beliefs is a reasonable piece of evidence that the beliefs are genuine. Obviously that doesn't happen much in the Western world these days, but it certainly has happened a lot throughout history and continues to happen today.
    - argumentum 13y ago
      I agree that they exist, but I don't personally know anyone like that. I'm talking about the average person who says "I'm catholic", "I'm jewish" or "I'm hindu" etc (and are the types of people who usually pitch to VCs). They haven't really questioned their beliefs.
      - baddox 13y ago
        I have no idea about the average person, or how you would even measure or quantify what it means to "actually" believe something you claim to believe. I suppose you could say the same thing about any belief system, even empiricism or scientific rationalism. How do you prove that you "actually" believe in anything?
        13y ago
- baddox 13y ago
  > but nobody questions a founder that worships a paranormal creator entity. Does this really surprise you? I'm not saying it's necessarily justified to question either group's abilities to build a company, but if I had to choose one group where problems would be more likely, I would choose the group that routinely becomes pregnant and raises children, both of which (rightfully so) require a very large portion of the parents' time and attention.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    "routinely becomes pregnant and raises children" What group does that anymore? Other than maybe the aamish, some groups in the middle east and a few mormon sects (in other words, extremely religious and archaic communities).
    - baddox 13y ago
      To be precise, the group routinely has members which become pregnant and raise children. I didn't mean that the group has members which routinely become pregnant and raise children.
      - argumentum 13y ago
        I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "routine": a sequence of actions regularly followed; a fixed program. "Is more likely to become .. " or "more commonly becomes" would make more sense. Nonetheless, what you are getting at (treating individuals as members of a group) is precisely the problem. Treat people as individuals, even if you believe expecting mothers to be a bad investment, don't assume every woman is more likely to become pregnant.
        baddox 13y ago
        It also means regular and customary. That's all I meant.
        13y ago
eli 13y ago
The founder in the original story did not end her pitch by claiming her business was likely to succeed because she intended to become a mother.
- argumentum 13y ago
  No, she didn't, and I wasn't commenting about her.

eaurouge 13y ago

Do you think people should question the logic of religious investors investing in companies run by atheist founders? And what does this have to do with the posted topic? Edit: I'm finding it hard reconciling what you said below [0] with what you said above. 0. Yep - I am not a big Dawkins fan. He does a lot of damage to the image of non-religious people, because he's such a jerk to the people he disagrees with.

peteforde 13y ago
It's late and I should probably not try to make coherent statements concerning politics and religion after 4am. I've had intelligent religious folks suggest to me that they are shocked I'm not a jerk, because so many of the prominent atheists in popular culture are jerks. Dawkins is a primary offender: he has a hard time answering any question without sounding smug and superior. This is a problem for me because I believe that he's mostly correct in his assertions. However: people don't remember what you say, they remember how they felt after you said it.
- haberman 13y ago
  > However: people don't remember what you say, they remember how they felt after you said it. This is a great and wise observation.
  - loomio 13y ago
    Here is the full quote: People will forget what you said, People will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. - Maya Angelou
- argumentum 13y ago
  Interestingly enough, Christopher Hitchens used to say far more inflammatory stuff but didn't really sound smug or superior.
  - rjbwork 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

Ah right. The guy in the article was making an insensitive comment towards the wrong group of people. We shouldn't be insensitive towards women, we should be insensitive towards religious people.

hartie 13y ago

"I think it's amazing that people would debate whether to fund a company led by a hard-working mother when nobody questions the logic of funding a company run by someone who worships a malevolent invisible sky wizard." Yet here you are. Debating.

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> "I think it's amazing that people would debate whether to fund a company led by a hard-working mother when nobody questions the logic of funding a company run by someone who worships a malevolent invisible sky wizard." How is that comparison at all valid? Being a mother is obviously going to take up a lot of your time and energy. Startups require a lot of time and energy. Doing both is difficult (although not impossible). Belief in a god is something most people do for an hour on the weekend. It's unlikely to impact the startup at all.