7 ms·

> The founder's wife story also reminds me of episodes I've heard involving the wife cabal. It's nothing as sinister as the GitHub story, but I see a lot of the

> The founder's wife story also reminds me of episodes I've heard involving the wife cabal. It's nothing as sinister as the GitHub story, but I see a lot of the same structural issues reflected in these telling anecdotes. If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. People will call me sexist for saying this, I expect, but women think socially with a level of complexity that I think most men never approach. If you are a man, chances are your wife does more to build the business than you ever do. I see nothing wrong with the involvement of founders' wives in the business. > The lack of an overt chain of command means that power asserts itself covertly. Thats the whole point of bossless environments and both their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. > In both cases the companies also boast a level of success that makes it hard for them to evaluate whether elements of their company culture is detrimental to their continued development at this stage of their existence. I don't think any company can evaluate that. Culture arises from the grass roots and that means that the floor employees are the ones who ultimately decide company culture. > I'm waiting for a hip rebranding of the term 'management' once these no-management companies realize they have issues that cannot be resolved by hiring supposedly perfect people. What do you think of WL Gore and Associates?

ZoF 13y ago
This post really bothers me somehow. Edit: Figured out why. I don't understand why saying, "people will call me sexist for this" immediately validates your statement as "not intended to be sexist". >"If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. People will call me sexist for saying this, I expect, but women think socially with a level of complexity that I think most men never approach." It's pretty clearly a sexist statement is it not? Am I confused about what makes a statement sexist? Does that entire paragraph not just objectify the wife and establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience? >"If you are a man, chances are your wife does more to build the business than you ever do." And this one doesn't even really make sense(as in where are you pulling this random ass statement from), not to mention stating it as, "If you are a founder, chances are your spouse does more to build the business than you ever do." feels literally 10x better to me(even if it still sounds false). Even the punctuation in that sentence makes the word man stand out when it could have easily been written without said punctuation.(well without the comma at least :-p ). I realize this is super overly sensitive by the way. I normally wouldn't comment, I had already posted "this post really bothers me somehow" though, and felt an explanation was warranted. Definitely curious if anyone else felt the same. Lastly, I'm a 21 year old white male; the only adversity I've ever faced is being called a ginger, so don't think this is coming from a longstanding feminist, just a human.
- nailer 13y ago
  > Does that entire paragraph not just objectify the wife and establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience? Re objectification: couples get advice from their life partners. That doesn't mean this is their life partners only goal. Re: 'establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience' is there anything ethically wrong with this? Would you prefer a citation be added, eg, 'newborn female infants stare at faces more often than male newborn infants'? Or do you find the mere existence of differences between the sexes to be 'offensive'? In which case, you're more than welcome to be offended.
  - ZoF 13y ago
    >Re objectification: couples get advice from their life partners. That doesn't mean this is their life partners only goal. Completely true, valid point. >Re: 'establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience' is there anything ethically wrong with this? I would argue that there is something ethically wrong with this. Take this statement: >" women think socially with a level of complexity that I think most men never approach." Yeah, on it's face it's a compliment(I guess?), but all it really serves to do, in this context,(for me, might read totally different to you) is illustrate the differences between the two sexes. Where's any evidence that his assertion is true? Anecdotal evidence is by definition flawed. I don't really understand where you're failing to see the potential for harm in this. > Would you prefer a citation be added, eg, 'newborn female infants stare at faces more often than male newborn infants'? Do you have a source stating that females raised in the same environment as males exhibited a higher level of social complexity? Because, yes, I would like to see that before changing my worldview based upon this persons statement. >Or do you find the mere existence of differences between the sexes to be 'offensive'? In which case, you're more than welcome to be offended. Not at all; what I find offensive is when people try to extrapolate meaning and form social constructs based upon differences that often aren't conclusively proven or even relevant. When I'm talking about these differences I don't mean boy-penis girl-vagina, I mean boy-brave/courageous/smart girl-cute/supportive/geeky. In my opinion these social constructs are already so ingrained in our society that this will be just as long and drawn out a problem as racism. I mean just define Masculine and Feminine in your head. I'm not trying to make a point here, or to white-knight, my original response was just how that post genuinely made me feel, I didn't like it.
muglug 13y ago
> If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. Um, I'd say that your spouse (of whichever gender) is one of your most valuable business resources, period - if they're someone who can hear your side of the story who aren't actually involved in the situation and someone who knows you better than you know yourself. But that person should never proceed to involve themselves in your business situation, unless your colleagues approve of their involvement. That appears to be the issue here.
dannypgh 13y ago
If your spouse is helping contribute to the business on that level, you should hire them. Otherwise you're really doing a disservice to everyone by having your spouse work without compensation or recognition.
- lucisferre 13y ago
  This is important. Uncertain why it would be downvoted. Please people, at least state your reasoning.
- commandar 13y ago
  > without compensation or recognition. Or, as this story demonstrates, accountability.
theorique 13y ago
If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. People will call me sexist for saying this, I expect, but women think socially with a level of complexity that I think most men never approach. If you are a man, chances are your wife does more to build the business than you ever do. I've definitely seen this in the past. At startups where I've worked or friends have worked, the founder's wives have played important support roles in ways that are easy to observe but hard to quantify. When one spouse is a startup founder, then it's a true "family effort" whether the other spouse likes it or not. And if it's "or not" ... well, then, that substantially hinders the chances of success.
marincounty 13y ago
I guess I'm too jaded, but I question getting married. If you hit the lottery and you become a successful Founder, your wife will own 1/2 of all those aching hours sitting in front of that screen. If she's the type of chick that will stick with you when you loose everything and work the paint booth at HD, by all means marry her, but those women just don't exist anymore. Women look at men so differently than we judge them--it's not worth taking a chance.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  You couldn't be more wrong. If you don't know any women who treat their spouses as other people, who have ups and downs, women who can't take "for richer or for poorer" seriously, then you're in the wrong social circles. Hell, my wife has offered to let me quit my job, where I make nearly twice as much as her (her electrical engineering salary would be enough to get us by), just so I can work on art full time, because she knows it will make me happier. I haven't, yet, because I also want her to be happy and I'm not so unhappy with my work yet that I can't earn us some more savings and hopefully make an exit for both of us.
- cossatot 13y ago
  I seriously hope you consider rethinking this position. There are a tremendous number of incredible women in the world, and most of them are not looking for a sugar daddy. Many women also work hard for their careers, passions, or some combination of both, and understand that both success and failure happen. I will also say that in many instances, if you have this opinion about women (or any group of persons), it's probably somewhat evident in your interactions with them, and you may not be treated quite as well as you would be otherwise. This can be self-reinforcing, but unfortunately the responsibility lies with you to pull yourself out of it and get some perspective. If you don't, well, get a strong pre-nup, I guess, or stay single forever.
  - ebfe 13y ago
    What advantages would marriage provide over a non-legal partnership? The latter seems to carry all of the benefits of marriage without any of the risks.
pron 13y ago
>> The lack of an overt chain of command means that power asserts itself covertly. > Thats the whole point of bossless environments and both their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. What, their point is to encourage death-match power struggles? And that's their strength? In nature, the fittest survive, but that's because nature is cruel (indifferent, actually). But a business must nurture its employees and make them feel safe – not send them into a battlefield.
acjohnson55 13y ago
Getting outside counsel on your business decisions is one thing, but either dispatching an outsider to internal business affairs as your hatchetperson or having them take it upon themselves to do so is not good business. As seen in Exhibit A, the original article.
grifpete 13y ago
"I see nothing wrong with the involvement of founders' wives in the business" This is nuts. If person A works at a company then obviously their significant other (male or female) will likely talk with them about work situations and that may be more or less helpful to A and the company. But the idea that as a general rule a female significant other's contribution will be so significant just by virtue of the "level of complexity" of the "social thinking" is just absurd.
- sizzle 13y ago
  therom reading the article, I got the vibe that the wife may have felt innatelyterritoriallyly?) threatened by the thought of a (pretty) female in the company getting close with her founder husband in a more intimate, rather than professional, typofof way. Thoughts?
lotsofmangos 13y ago
If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. If you are a male founder, you might not be married and you might not be straight. Also, one way to kill romance is to tell your significant other that they are your most valuable business resource.
phazmatis 13y ago
Someone was asleep on HR ethics training day.
msrobot0 13y ago
So you should hire your wife and make her the CEO

ZoF 13y ago

This post really bothers me somehow. Edit: Figured out why. I don't understand why saying, "people will call me sexist for this" immediately validates your statement as "not intended to be sexist". >"If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. People will call me sexist for saying this, I expect, but women think socially with a level of complexity that I think most men never approach." It's pretty clearly a sexist statement is it not? Am I confused about what makes a statement sexist? Does that entire paragraph not just objectify the wife and establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience? >"If you are a man, chances are your wife does more to build the business than you ever do." And this one doesn't even really make sense(as in where are you pulling this random ass statement from), not to mention stating it as, "If you are a founder, chances are your spouse does more to build the business than you ever do." feels literally 10x better to me(even if it still sounds false). Even the punctuation in that sentence makes the word man stand out when it could have easily been written without said punctuation.(well without the comma at least :-p ). I realize this is super overly sensitive by the way. I normally wouldn't comment, I had already posted "this post really bothers me somehow" though, and felt an explanation was warranted. Definitely curious if anyone else felt the same. Lastly, I'm a 21 year old white male; the only adversity I've ever faced is being called a ginger, so don't think this is coming from a longstanding feminist, just a human.

nailer 13y ago
> Does that entire paragraph not just objectify the wife and establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience? Re objectification: couples get advice from their life partners. That doesn't mean this is their life partners only goal. Re: 'establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience' is there anything ethically wrong with this? Would you prefer a citation be added, eg, 'newborn female infants stare at faces more often than male newborn infants'? Or do you find the mere existence of differences between the sexes to be 'offensive'? In which case, you're more than welcome to be offended.
- ZoF 13y ago
  >Re objectification: couples get advice from their life partners. That doesn't mean this is their life partners only goal. Completely true, valid point. >Re: 'establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience' is there anything ethically wrong with this? I would argue that there is something ethically wrong with this. Take this statement: >" women think socially with a level of complexity that I think most men never approach." Yeah, on it's face it's a compliment(I guess?), but all it really serves to do, in this context,(for me, might read totally different to you) is illustrate the differences between the two sexes. Where's any evidence that his assertion is true? Anecdotal evidence is by definition flawed. I don't really understand where you're failing to see the potential for harm in this. > Would you prefer a citation be added, eg, 'newborn female infants stare at faces more often than male newborn infants'? Do you have a source stating that females raised in the same environment as males exhibited a higher level of social complexity? Because, yes, I would like to see that before changing my worldview based upon this persons statement. >Or do you find the mere existence of differences between the sexes to be 'offensive'? In which case, you're more than welcome to be offended. Not at all; what I find offensive is when people try to extrapolate meaning and form social constructs based upon differences that often aren't conclusively proven or even relevant. When I'm talking about these differences I don't mean boy-penis girl-vagina, I mean boy-brave/courageous/smart girl-cute/supportive/geeky. In my opinion these social constructs are already so ingrained in our society that this will be just as long and drawn out a problem as racism. I mean just define Masculine and Feminine in your head. I'm not trying to make a point here, or to white-knight, my original response was just how that post genuinely made me feel, I didn't like it.

muglug 13y ago

> If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. Um, I'd say that your spouse (of whichever gender) is one of your most valuable business resources, period - if they're someone who can hear your side of the story who aren't actually involved in the situation and someone who knows you better than you know yourself. But that person should never proceed to involve themselves in your business situation, unless your colleagues approve of their involvement. That appears to be the issue here.

dannypgh 13y ago

If your spouse is helping contribute to the business on that level, you should hire them. Otherwise you're really doing a disservice to everyone by having your spouse work without compensation or recognition.

lucisferre 13y ago
This is important. Uncertain why it would be downvoted. Please people, at least state your reasoning.
commandar 13y ago
> without compensation or recognition. Or, as this story demonstrates, accountability.

theorique 13y ago

If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. People will call me sexist for saying this, I expect, but women think socially with a level of complexity that I think most men never approach. If you are a man, chances are your wife does more to build the business than you ever do. I've definitely seen this in the past. At startups where I've worked or friends have worked, the founder's wives have played important support roles in ways that are easy to observe but hard to quantify. When one spouse is a startup founder, then it's a true "family effort" whether the other spouse likes it or not. And if it's "or not" ... well, then, that substantially hinders the chances of success.

marincounty 13y ago

I guess I'm too jaded, but I question getting married. If you hit the lottery and you become a successful Founder, your wife will own 1/2 of all those aching hours sitting in front of that screen. If she's the type of chick that will stick with you when you loose everything and work the paint booth at HD, by all means marry her, but those women just don't exist anymore. Women look at men so differently than we judge them--it's not worth taking a chance.

moron4hire 13y ago
You couldn't be more wrong. If you don't know any women who treat their spouses as other people, who have ups and downs, women who can't take "for richer or for poorer" seriously, then you're in the wrong social circles. Hell, my wife has offered to let me quit my job, where I make nearly twice as much as her (her electrical engineering salary would be enough to get us by), just so I can work on art full time, because she knows it will make me happier. I haven't, yet, because I also want her to be happy and I'm not so unhappy with my work yet that I can't earn us some more savings and hopefully make an exit for both of us.
cossatot 13y ago
I seriously hope you consider rethinking this position. There are a tremendous number of incredible women in the world, and most of them are not looking for a sugar daddy. Many women also work hard for their careers, passions, or some combination of both, and understand that both success and failure happen. I will also say that in many instances, if you have this opinion about women (or any group of persons), it's probably somewhat evident in your interactions with them, and you may not be treated quite as well as you would be otherwise. This can be self-reinforcing, but unfortunately the responsibility lies with you to pull yourself out of it and get some perspective. If you don't, well, get a strong pre-nup, I guess, or stay single forever.
- ebfe 13y ago
  What advantages would marriage provide over a non-legal partnership? The latter seems to carry all of the benefits of marriage without any of the risks.

pron 13y ago

>> The lack of an overt chain of command means that power asserts itself covertly. > Thats the whole point of bossless environments and both their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. What, their point is to encourage death-match power struggles? And that's their strength? In nature, the fittest survive, but that's because nature is cruel (indifferent, actually). But a business must nurture its employees and make them feel safe – not send them into a battlefield.

acjohnson55 13y ago

Getting outside counsel on your business decisions is one thing, but either dispatching an outsider to internal business affairs as your hatchetperson or having them take it upon themselves to do so is not good business. As seen in Exhibit A, the original article.

grifpete 13y ago

"I see nothing wrong with the involvement of founders' wives in the business" This is nuts. If person A works at a company then obviously their significant other (male or female) will likely talk with them about work situations and that may be more or less helpful to A and the company. But the idea that as a general rule a female significant other's contribution will be so significant just by virtue of the "level of complexity" of the "social thinking" is just absurd.

sizzle 13y ago
therom reading the article, I got the vibe that the wife may have felt innatelyterritoriallyly?) threatened by the thought of a (pretty) female in the company getting close with her founder husband in a more intimate, rather than professional, typofof way. Thoughts?

lotsofmangos 13y ago

If you are male and a founder, one of your most valuable business resources is your wife. If you are a male founder, you might not be married and you might not be straight. Also, one way to kill romance is to tell your significant other that they are your most valuable business resource.

phazmatis 13y ago

Someone was asleep on HR ethics training day.

msrobot0 13y ago

So you should hire your wife and make her the CEO