[HN Gopher] Female Founder Secrets: Fertility ___________________________________________________________________ Female Founder Secrets: Fertility Author : femfosec Score : 283 points Date : 2021-03-04 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (femfosec.com) (TXT) w3m dump (femfosec.com) | JacobSuperslav wrote: | i don't understand why adoption isn't more popular. besides the | obvious shallow reasons of wanting a biological copy of yourself | etc. | austincheney wrote: | The only logical answer here is youth. The younger you are the | more fertile you are. This is true for both men and women, but | more true for women. If you want children at some point in life | then prioritize children first and early. | | I know, this puts your ambitious career on hold for a while and | start ups require huge ambition. Still, start up opportunities | will not be hyper critically different in the future than they | are now. In the future you may not be able to have children. | | This is so completely clear based upon my commute to work. Closer | to the downtown where I live there are all kinds of clinics for | young mothers in mostly poorer areas. Where I work is the | wealthiest county, per capita, in Texas and there are fertility | clinics lining the street. That difference is striking. People | who put their careers first tend to have more trouble having | children and are willing to pay massive sums of money to fix | biology. | ngngngng wrote: | Adoption is another logical answer that can be very rewarding. | All of us in the family I grew up in were adopted as infants. | It's more expensive than birthing your own children but I | imagine parents that left their fertile years focused on a | career would be able to afford adoption. | austincheney wrote: | In most places adoption is also very expensive. For some | absurd reason prospective adopting parents must prove they | are worthy of raising children to the state, while biological | parents don't have to prove anything. | mattnewton wrote: | Because orphans are wards of the state, and if the state | thinks you would do a worse job providing for them why | would they hand the child over? | DanBC wrote: | Children are taken off the parents to protect them from | harm. We can only justify that if we then protect them from | harm, and that means not placing them with abusive parents. | [deleted] | Aaargh20318 wrote: | > The only logical answer here is youth. | | No, the only real answer is that you are in no way required to | reproduce. There are more than enough humans. Humanity is | basically a plague. | jimbokun wrote: | > Humanity is basically a plague. | | This succinctly states the premise behind a lot of | progressive thinking. | evnc wrote: | This is essentially ecofascism and is not compatible with a | modern free society. | | I actually _like_ humanity, and I want it to persist. Many of | my best friends are humans. | | (I'm not trying to throw around "fascist" as a cheap insult: | this is an actual ideology, and "humans are basically a | plague" is a core tenent.) | ThisIsTheWay wrote: | I feel like part of the problem is the obsession in media and | social circles with young success. I see lists like Forbes 30 | under 30, 40 under 40, and the celebration of young | billionaires who are worshipped and held up as the example of | what high performers should strive to be, and its quite | unhealthy. I wish there were more stories about people who | found success in their 40's, 50's and beyond, especially the | ones who took time to fail, learn from it, and apply it later | in life. | mywittyname wrote: | Yeah, but those people are the one-in-100-million types. | | Most people have lack-luster careers in their 20s, which pick | up in their 30s and peak in their 40s-50s. It makes a lot of | sense for the average person to prioritize family building in | their early 20s so that the kids are more self-sufficient | right at the time where your career is taking off. | | Plus, if your blessed enough to have parents who can help | out, having babies when your parents are in their 40s-50s is | substantially better than when they are 60+. My parents (50s) | do really well at caring for their grandkids while my in-laws | (60s) actually aren't capable of being alone with their | grandkids, aunts or uncles "come to visit" anytime they watch | the kids. | ThisIsTheWay wrote: | > It makes a lot of sense for the average person to | prioritize family building in their early 20s so that the | kids are more self-sufficient right at the time where your | career is taking off. | | It does make a lot of sense, but my point is that's not | what people are doing. The ages that women have their first | babies have been increasing [0], and a large part of that | is that women are more focused on their careers in their | 20's than they have been in the past [1]. | | [0] : | https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up- | bir... | | [1] : | https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2020/05/01/new- | stud... | NathanKP wrote: | > It makes a lot of sense for the average person to | prioritize family building in their early 20s | | I'd say it used to make sense before the late 1970's when | wages started stagnating. As the gap has grown the average | person in their early 20's has to struggle to afford to pay | for their own basic needs, much less trying to afford to | have kids. Once their career is starting to pick up in | their 30s they finally have the financial situation to | start considering kids. | Miner49er wrote: | This advice is likely economically bad though. Capital now is | better than capital later. I would think money made early and | saved by not having children and invested will end up being | much more then what will be spent on a fertility clinic later. | PKop wrote: | It's almost as if human social norms solved this dilemma by | division of labor: men bear the brunt of earning capital, | while women are freed up to have and raise children. | | The women's "empowerment" movement in this context can be | seen as a cynical ploy by capital to convince women their | "power" is tied to earning wages and having a career instead | of having a family and they must pursue economic independence | over over strategic "dependence" on a husband to help them | realize commons goals. | | At the end of the day women, and men, will ultimately want | what they want. The argument here is that in the grand scheme | of things they want a family, and will regret early choices | that threaten this goal long term. Whether they are | distracted away from this goal by capitalist propaganda to | increase the labor supply, or they combine forces to achieve | it is the challenge. | | People will argue "men and women should make their own | choices and determine this for themselves". Yes, but what is | the default cultural message nowadays? What is promoted as | the norm? What is the institutional and political rhetoric | around this question? Western liberal democratic, capitalist | nations stand firmly on the side of promoting careerism for | women over early motherhood and marriage. | jfengel wrote: | They also promote careerism for men, a notion that doesn't | ever seem to come into question. It's true that only women | can gestate and breast feed, but after that fatherhood and | motherhood are very similar callings. Men could opt out of | the capitalist summons to the labor supply just as easily | as women, and it shouldn't have to fall entirely on women | to choose between "careerism" and "motherhood". | | If we shifted the norms to allow that, women would be able | to make their decisions freely and fairly, rather than just | accepting that the lion's share of of parenting should be | up to them. Rhetoric that shifts solely to ending careerism | for women, but not for men, does indeed disempower women. | PKop wrote: | Ultimately you're arguing for reality to change to fit | your utopian whims. I'm saying, for the average couple, | we should lean into reality. | | Would it be great if we could all have it all? Of course. | I'm more concerned with the actual happiness and | fulfillment of people who really will regret not having | started a family early, and instead wasted their efforts | following the neo-liberal careerist path. | | Someone's got to have the children and raise them. | Someone's got to put in the time at work. Because of the | time, effort and physical realities of women bearing | children, for most couples the division of labor falls | most efficiently on men putting in most of the time | rising up the corporate ladder. | | People that recognize this happy path and want to go | their own way are welcome to it. But we shouldn't lie to | people. We should be honest with men and women from a | young age what reality is. | jimbokun wrote: | > It's true that only women can gestate and breast feed, | | If you have multiple children, that can add up to a | significant chunk of prime career building years. | austincheney wrote: | Unfortunately, that is the other side of the coin. Most | people who have children at young ages tend to be less well | off financially for the rest of their lives than people who | wait until late to have children. That is simply because time | and principle are the only factors that really matter in | building wealth. | | This difference can also be taken to absurd extremes though. | I honestly wonder why single people without children in my | line of work aren't millionaires just based upon the | compensation of their day jobs. After having 5 military | deployments I can live in a cardboard box and would require | only the cheapest of cars to commute to work. I don't spend | money very often. | jimbokun wrote: | > I honestly wonder why single people without children in | my line of work aren't millionaires just based upon the | compensation of their day jobs. | | I'm not sure that people who never have children | necessarily end up with more wealth than people who do have | children, due to psychological impacts. | | Having a kid can inspire parents to get their shit together | and succeed financially and think about the future, | compared to a single person just spending on their hobbies | and playing video games. | oeuiiuhmbuh wrote: | Mother's age at birth directly affects a child's health and | life outcomes [1]. It is impossible to replace a woman's 20s | with any amount of money. | | [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS221 | 4-1... | mattnewton wrote: | Minor nit, this article is mostly about how teenage mothers | result in worse outcomes, and talks about the many | advantages older mothers have up to over 35 when | complications dominate the better resources older mothers | tend to have. | itronitron wrote: | _If you have very good health insurance_ then the main cost | for having children is going to be the increased cost of | housing, which can be a capital investment. In addition to | mortgage deduction, families also get deductions for children | so there really isn 't much to be saved by not having | children until later in life. | poopoopeepee wrote: | Another alternative is to design your startup around a very | low burn rate and change nothing else in your life. I mean, | if it is going to take 5-10 years as the blogger claims, | what's 8-12 years if you get to tick all the other boxes in | life? | mattnewton wrote: | 8-12 years of child rearing is very expensive. That's | without even taking into compounding returns from working | longer hours, seniority, experience, and investments. | poopoopeepee wrote: | The blog post starts with your same premise: pull out all | the stops on working hard. It's just a choice. Why not | have a startup that takes longer to grow? | | To make the point clear: children raised by young and | growing parents and different from children raised by old | and established parents. Slow startups are different from | fast startups. No judgement, they are just different. But | the premise that a fast startup is the only way to do a | startup is false. It's just choices for different | outcomes. | mattnewton wrote: | I am the child of two young parents who had to drop out | of college to raise me and my siblings, eventually on my | father's "lifestyle business" when working multiple jobs | didn't balance the books, so I am well aware of the | tradeoffs. In my experience though it's not a question of | just adjusting your lifestyle for many people, it's a | question of financial survival. | | My parents have not come close to being financially | recovered relative to later-parents a decade after we've | all left the house. The delay you are talking about | compounds to absolutely massive differences in my | experience. Trying to multi-task both the other "life" | check boxes and your work is going to have large hidden | costs on work because of these compounding advantages. | nzmsv wrote: | The chances of having a kid with a serious disorder go up | dramatically for older mothers (and recent research shows | this is true for fathers too). Even if we decide only to care | about economics and not the kids health, health issues are | expensive. | andi999 wrote: | Can you point to the 'dramatic' risks for older fathers? | Usually it is a minor change in chance blown up by | sensational press. | nzmsv wrote: | First hit on Google: | https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20100208/autism- | risk... | | 77% increase seems pretty dramatic to me. | Matticus_Rex wrote: | That stat is for mothers. He asked for fathers. | [deleted] | CobrastanJorji wrote: | It's certainly economically worse, sure, but on the other | hand you might be optimizing for other things. I for one | would like to know my grandkids, and if I have my first kid | at 40, and my kid has their first kid at 40, I'll have likely | died of old age before my first grandkid reaches high school. | Plus, I really like the idea of my kids being out of the | house before my 60s. Factor those in with the studies about | the relationship between the health of children and the age | of the parents, and I'm willing to trade some potential | income for those considerations (although that has limits, | and having kids early can have quite substantial economic | downsides, especially if you're a woman, and doubly | especially if you end up out of the workforce entirely to | raise them). | devmunchies wrote: | time is worth more than money. I'm glad I spent some time in | my 20s raising little tikes so I can have more time with | them. | | Having kids late in life is like a deathbed confessional. | people just want to cross "birth children" off their list, | but don't really think about being a mother/father for the | rest of their life. | | If you value career over family thats cool, but you wont get | returns on "family-as-an-asset" if you invest late in life. | Invest early for greater returns. | sbierwagen wrote: | If your only goal is to accumulate capital over your | lifespan, then you won't have children at all, since they're | tremendously expensive and have no dollar return. | koolba wrote: | They're a great way to add some diversity to your | retirement portfolio. Young able bodies that can get a job | and provide you with food and shelter in your old age are | the original inflation proof investment. Also, kids are | awesome. | sbierwagen wrote: | >Young able bodies that can get a job... are the original | inflation proof investment. | | Not quite sure that is true: | https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mk1AG.jpg | | >Also, kids are awesome. | | If I am a dollar optimizer, the only thing I care about | is money. How much can I sell "awesome" for? Can I skip a | step and sell the children directly? | lotsofpulp wrote: | Children have massive potentials for dollar return. Not | least because you can't buy the type of care your child | might give you in old age for any price. But also because | if they succeed, then you have access to their networks, | which can also be worth quite a lot. | | You won't be able to calculate a precise number, but the | saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know" shows | the dollar price of networks is very high. | kansface wrote: | > Still, start up opportunities will not be hyper critically | different in the future than they are now. In the future you | may not be able to have children. | | This is not accurate for people with kids. A startup is an all | encompassing job that pays very little in the short term and | has a small chance at ever paying out a large amount. The | opportunity cost of a real job is enormous. | jpm_sd wrote: | I wonder if "children raised mostly by their grandparents" will | start to become more common. There's been a rise in multi- | generational households lately due to pandemic shifts. | | Maybe younger parents who are also clawing their way up the | career ladder will be able to take advantage of this situation | to offload some parenting to their own parents, and then pay it | forward when their own kids have children later on? Might be | the only practical way to have kids in your 20s these days. | evnc wrote: | I kinda wish it would. Anecdotally, as a dual income | household grandparental assistance was indispensable in | raising our baby, and I've sorely missed it since the | pandemic hit and no one's visiting any more. I recognize how | lucky we were to have that available, since not everyone | does. | | I think it can also have great benefits for the grandparents, | who find a new sense of fulfillment and purpose and something | to fill their time later in life. It reminds me of the | studies on combining preschools and nursing homes showing | positive outcomes for both populations. Also, intuitively, | multi-generational households were the norm throughout human | history before industrialization and economic centralization | encouraged "leave your family behind and go Seek Your | Fortune". | abellerose wrote: | It's completely unethical to have kids and like another | commenter has said brings a great disadvantage economically. I | would suggest to anyone to not follow your advice. | | edit: I won't be further commenting on the topic because the | same people asking everyone "when are you going to have kids | like me?" are just going to downvote. Yes, I rather see an end | to humankind because that ends suffering. Less suffering in a | universe is better than a universe that experienced more. Yes, | nobody cares about the ones that wish they never had been born | because of whatever reason that was inflicted upon them. | wwww4alll wrote: | Women are biologically determined to have children with a man | that can provide security and resources. It's natural drive | and need on the same level as breathing, eating, drinking. | | Men are biologically driven to have many children, from many | different women, as their circumstances and resource ps | allow. | | This is the human condition and anyone born alive accepted | the EULA agreement, by being born alive. | drakonka wrote: | Do you deny the existence of men and women who choose not | to have children? | wwww4alll wrote: | Please go out and meet people, men, women, in real life. | | People go through phases. Little children think they are | dinosaurs and have pretend tea parties. | | I've known several women that said they didn't ever want | kids, while dating loser college boyfriends. | | However, when the same women met and married successful, | richer, older men, the women popped out babies left and | right. | | People say things all the time to rationalize their | circumstances. | | Men and women will make babies. It's biological drive. It | doesn't matter what people believe or think. It's how | species continue and survive. | drakonka wrote: | > Please go out and meet people, men, women, in real | life. | | That's horrible advice, we're in a pandemic. But when | it's over I would highly suggest taking your own advice. | If you are really discussing in good faith and genuinely | have never met or heard of a person who has chosen to go | through life without having kids, to the point of | legitimately not believing that such people even exist, | it sounds like your world has been very small. I wish you | the best of luck with expanding it. | wwww4alll wrote: | Deflecting reality is not going to make it less real. | | You exist because your parents make babies. All these so | called people that claim they don't want kids exist, | because their parents make babies. Men and women make | babies, because it is core biological drive in reality. | No amount of rationalization will change reality. | | Reality will bite people on their butt, one way or | another. Biological drive will overcome any belief or | thoughts, when circumstances become better for people. | lainga wrote: | What impact do you foresee any economic gains from | childlessness having in 100 years, if your advice is followed | universally? Who will inherit those gains? | abellerose wrote: | I believe the context for the advice is directed to whoever | is capable of having children. So, economic gains are | meaningless to them when they're dead in 100 years. | lainga wrote: | Put another way: let's say everyone who is capable of | children follows your advice. To whom are these economic | gains meaningful in 100 years? Who would their parents | be? | abellerose wrote: | What you're implying is meaningless to the ones that are | dead. So maybe you can now realize why I wrote my | response and it was directed towards anyone considering | conceiving a child. | lainga wrote: | OK, from a pure hedonistic view - let's say at some time | in the future, there are no more humans left. Why would | it make sense to invest anything into economic gain in | the time before that happens? You'd rather run the | economy into the ground to extract as much value as you | could from it, before the end of human existence. You - | or else someone else who is the last human alive - are | "leaving something on the table", so to speak. Otherwise | they are just leaving value around for wildlife. | | In other words there would be a time, maybe dependent on | the rate at which remaining humans can unwind the human | economy, past which any effort at collective economic | gain wouldn't be worth it. | drakonka wrote: | I think of this as a non-issue; either my partner, or a | friend, or a charity of choice will inherit my gains if I | don't spend them all enjoying life first. | [deleted] | austincheney wrote: | It's unethical to have kids? I don't follow. | abellerose wrote: | You might find the following interesting: | https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/choosing-children- | ethical... I, for one, would never bring another life into | this world and while so much suffering occurs. It's ethical | to adopt contrary to conceive children. | wwww4alll wrote: | I am certain your parents had same ideas. Until they | decided to have babies. Having kids is powerful natural | drive after finding suitable enough mates. | | Statistically, you will have children in future, if | you're under 30 right now. | leetcrew wrote: | statistically, you will be attracted to women, if you're | a man right now. and yet... | wwww4alll wrote: | Attractive men and women will find each other and make | babies, as they have done for thousands of years. | | Instagram, Raya, Tinder make it much easier for | attractive people to find each other efficiently. | Cederfjard wrote: | That was my interpretation. There are some antinatalists | out there. | DoingIsLearning wrote: | Can I just say we should really stop using these 'turf' | labels, the flat-earthers, the anti-vaxxers, now this | 'antinatilist' label. | | It makes it seem like a binomial thing, you are either in | my group or in the other. Discussion stops being about | the ideas and more adversarial, focused on taking sides. | | Also it creates a group identity which in my opinion | makes it harder for people to change their minds based on | discussion or new info. | | If my aunt tells me vaccines are bad I might trust her. | But if there is whole group of 'anti-vaxxer' people who | make me feel good about myself then I suppose I am now an | anti-vaxxer and that becomes an identity more so than an | opinion which would be more fluid and mutable. | devmunchies wrote: | > brings a great disadvantage economically | | yeah but you forgot about my platinum, enterprise-grade DNA. | really good for the economy as a whole. | | Other people are going to have kids, their kids will | encounter hardships and need problem solvers among the pack. | Its unethical to deprive their posterity of my web-scale(r) | DNA. | wwww4alll wrote: | This could work as Tinder bio. It's unethical to deprive | future generations of my DNA. | shaneprrlt wrote: | The antinatalist point of view is incredibly damaging to the | long term progress of our species. | harperlee wrote: | Seeing as a big chuck of what someone believes is | culturally inherited from their parents, and thus | hypothesizing that meme* survival partially follows parent- | child relationships, I'd say that that's a problem that | will end up self-correcting :) | | * In the original Richard Dawkins sense, not in the funny | gif sense. | wwww4alll wrote: | You would think this is the case. But yet, they keep on | reproducing while complaining bitterly about it. | | Above commenter will likely have children very shortly. | bulek wrote: | Amusingly we have a case study for this: the Shakers. | | "They practice a celibate and communal lifestyle, | pacifism, uniform charismatic worship, and their model of | equality of the sexes, which they institutionalized in | their society in the 1780s." | | Needless to say there's only 2 left. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers | leetcrew wrote: | I'm not intimately familiar with all the different strains | of antinatalism, but I think that's kinda the point? an | antinatalist would not consider funding existing people's | retirements or possibly even the survival of the species to | be sufficient justification for creating new conscious | beings who cannot consent to their creation. | jimbokun wrote: | At which point that philosophy has completely jumped the | shark. | | The premise that the universe is somehow "better" with no | conscious life is just silly sophistry. | leetcrew wrote: | > The premise that the universe is somehow "better" with | no conscious life is just silly sophistry. | | meh, no more than all the other moral philosophies. some | are more practical than others, but none are more "true" | than others. | john_moscow wrote: | That's what the corporations want you to believe because they | want you to spend as much time and energy as possible being a | cog in their machine and source the next generation of | workers from the lowest bidder on the global scale. | mberning wrote: | I just recently had my first at an age closer to 40 than 30. I | think freezing your eggs and having kids later is not such a | great idea. Sure, you can have the kid well outside your prime or | even use a surrogate. But that is just the beginning. Your child | is not going to get the experience of being raised by a more | youthful and energetic version of yourself . I think there is a | lot to be said for that. I wish I had started 5 years sooner. | darrylb42 wrote: | I had kids in my mid-late 40s Certainly motivation to be | healthy and get energy levels up. For women and the men who | have kids with them the chances of twins goes up with age. Or | at least that is what my wife found when search for a reason to | blame me. :) | Baeocystin wrote: | My Mom was well in her 40's when I was born, my Dad in his | early 50's. | | I wouldn't trade the childhood I had with them for the world. | By the time I came around, they were able to provide a wise, | warm, stable and loving home in a way that even the best- | intentioned younger folks wouldn't have known how to do. That I | played fewer games of toss the ball or the like in exchange | doesn't matter a whit. FWIW. | hycaria wrote: | I really don't feel the same. As a young adult you get to see | your parents get very old very fast, and also when you get | internships first job and such your parent has been in | retirement for ten years and is clueless about the workforce. | Also they're too old to bother to be grand parents now. Also | my old man globally did not give a shit and focus on his own | aspirations while he still had free time in good health and | financially prepare for his retirement rather than see and | help his kid bloom as a young adult. And I can't really blame | him for it. | earthboundkid wrote: | In the same boat. Another con of waiting is that many people I | wish my children could meet (great grandparents, uncles, | friends of family) have died. And of course I and my partner | will be dead N years sooner than if I had children at age X - | N, which means (at best) less time for grandchildren, or who | knows. | [deleted] | sct202 wrote: | I have older parents who had me at 40, and I wouldn't feel | guilty over it if I were you. I didn't really realize how much | older my parents were than a lot of other people's until I went | to college. | earthboundkid wrote: | Can't speak for the OP, but it's not a "guilt" thing for me. | Just trying to understand the pros and cons from a personal | and social level. | benlivengood wrote: | One thing I noticed as I aged is that my emotional intelligence | and resilience increased (as energy decreased) and I'm not sure | which is more important for kids; generally what I've read is | that so long as kids have food, shelter, some quality time with | parents, and healthy interactions with other humans they | generally turn out normal. It's fun to be able to do youthful | things with kids but the kids can honestly do youthful stuff | with anyone and grow from it. | | Definitely don't beat yourself up for not being younger; kids | will always have more free time and energy than their parents | (I had all my kids before 27) and the important thing is to | help them find outlets for that energy that they really enjoy. | Solvitieg wrote: | Another downside is smaller multi-generational families. | | Children birthed to older parents are unlikely to have | grandparents. | 29athrowaway wrote: | It is not only about eggs. | | Childcare requires a lot of stamina: waking up at night, | multitasking all the time. It is not something you want to start | doing in your 40s until your late 50s. | | You do not to have a huge age gap between you and your kid and be | a parent that is tired all the time. | pseudosavant wrote: | Great blog post. But this HN thread has a toxic level of "well | actually..." going on. | chrisseaton wrote: | Facebook and Apple will pay to freeze your eggs as an employee | benefit, is that right? | Nesco wrote: | Am I the only one to find this dystopian? Society should adapt | to humans and not the other way around. | nyghtly wrote: | I agree. The implicit messaging is: "If you care about your | career, then you should freeze your eggs. We'll pay for it, | so no excuses." It's like they're admitting to the fact that | pregnant women will be discriminated against professionally. | barnaclejive wrote: | That is great, but also deeply depressing. | antattack wrote: | Even when having children young, I feel that whole child-rearing | experience, aka family, takes a back seat once both parents start | working full time. 8 hours work day + one hour commute = you see | your kids for hour or two before they go to sleep. | [deleted] | izolate wrote: | This is a heartbreaking read, I feel for the author. This is a | true case of biology not having kept up with societal progress. | mutatio wrote: | "Progress"? Interesting interpretation, I'd invert that; | society is miles from where it needs to be if these situations | are increasing in frequency. And I don't think medi/biotech is | the solution. | grillvogel wrote: | or you could argue that "societal progress" is at odds with | basic human needs | dcow wrote: | I think women have largely been presented a false promise by | progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what | men do to be their equal. It's not necessarily anybody's fault, | we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could | structure society in a way such that the value of raising | children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. | Being a mother without a snazzy career is frowned upon by plenty | of people these days. I don't think that stigma is healthy. Why | do women have to emulate men to be valuable? | | Couple that with the fact that depression is most prevalent among | childless women in their 40s, it's like we're fighting nature to | create a perfect 3rd wave utopia. Of course women should follow | their heart and we should build a society that allows them to do | so on equal terms, but we should not discourage homemaking and | stigmatize people who want to raise children. | | And then there's the practical side of things for which I've not | been able to come to a good solution: In order to have a society | of power career couples, someone has to raise their kids. As a | couple that means you have to find someone who makes at most the | same as you make, but probably less, to be your nanny (otherwise | it would make more sense financially to just do it yourself). I | don't see how that's a sustainable narrative unless we are | holding out for technology to fill that need. | | Me? I would be a stay at home dad in a heartbeat. I love cooking | and homemaking and being there for children. But practically in | my relationship that doesn't make sense so I'm obligated to work | my days away in order to provide for my family. I think there's | this idea that all men love career life because it pays the | bills. In reality it's far from a pipe dream existence. | | Point is life is about making sacrifices in order to find | happiness. If you sacrifice your youth and fertility for a shot | at big riches, ultimately thats your choice. I just wish as a | society we were more honest about reality and weren't so | dismissive of people who choose to raise children. That is where | I see the path start to turn destructive. | jberryman wrote: | > presented a false promise by progressives | | I think this is a poor framing for the rest of your comment, | which is essentially a feminist critique of patriarchy and | capitalism, and how patriarchy/capitalism is a harmful | structure to men as well. Progressives are totally on board | with this. | Kye wrote: | I was on the train to goofball-ville a long, long time ago | because I thought the goofballs were the only ones making | these critiques of binarist advocacy focused on one part of | the problem. Fortunately I found that feminists made them | earlier and better than any MRA type person could ever hope | to. Give me any number of Judith Butlers or bell hookses over | the sharpest "intellectual dark web" genius. | cloudier wrote: | +1000 | | It's just way easier to help women achieve success in a way | that helps capitalists than it is to push for better working | conditions for parents. But pushing for better working | conditions isn't impossible either, and the US is an extreme | outlier in how hostile it is to working parents. | HuShifang wrote: | I completely agree with the point here -- people should have | the freedom to work a bit less and "live" more (however they | define that, be it parenting, pursuing hobbies, or what have | you) without fear for their livelihood. | | I would offer one amendment: in the US at least, disagreement | on this theme is probably one of the major dividing lines | between liberals and progressives (and their fellow travelers). | Liberals (like Elizabeth Warren, who has labeled herself a | progressive but is generally liberal in her policy positions) | prioritize free child care and other policies that would make | outsourcing childcare less financially onerous, freeing people | to work more; progressives and their fellow travelers (like | Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang) prioritize paid family leave, | UBI, and other policies that would minimize the need to | outsource childcare in the first place by allowing people to | work less. | amelius wrote: | Meanwhile it is impossible for many people to own a house | without a double income... | | So your idea makes sense, but not in today's economy. | Karawebnetwork wrote: | > Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable? | | Why do we assume that those behaviors are inherently a man's? | | Women that have a drive to become business leaders do so for | personal reasons and not to emulate anyone (except perhaps | personal heroes who could happen to be women). | | You later speak about a wish to become a stay-at-home father. | Is this emulating women or is it a wish based on activities | that are not inherently gendered such as cooking and taking | care of children? | dcow wrote: | My point is not that these behaviors are inherently those of | a man. It's that success should be defined much more broadly | than "things men traditionally do". I think we are in | agreement on that I may have not done the best job at | capturing the point. | Karawebnetwork wrote: | But is being a start-up founder really something that men | traditionally do or is it a completely new role that people | of all genders can aim for? | | This role can be toxic and lead to problematic behaviours | that can worsen a person's personal life and mental health, | regardless of their gender identity. | africanboy wrote: | it's something that men have traditionally done, yes. | | it's like the beard, it's traditionally something that, | in general, men have and women don't. | | that doesn't mean that things can't change in the future | and that the change won't be for the better. | Karawebnetwork wrote: | Some of my personal idols from the past are Coco Chanel, | Estee Lauder and Katharine Graham. | | That would be women born in the 1880's, 1900's and early | 1920's. | | While few women had the privilege required to focus on | their career, it was still present. At what point should | we mark something as "tradition"? | | Remember that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was not a | thing until 1974. Until then, banks required single, | widowed or divorced women to bring a man along to cosign | any credit application, regardless of their income. | africanboy wrote: | I'm not American, so I know nothing about the equal | credit opportunity, sorry. | | I also think that traditions in USA is used to mean | inertia ("things have always been done that way" etc.), | but US are a very bad country for female workers for | reasons that go beyond traditions. | | My country has its share of remarkable women, Miuccia | Prada is one of them and she's still alive and well, | Fabiola Giannotti is Italian and the first female | director of CERN, Maria Montessori (1870) the inventor of | the Montessori educational method was Italian,Grazia | Deledda was the second woman in history to win a Nobel | price in 1926 and the first Italian woman and the list | could go on, the fact is that until not long ago men and | women had different jobs because it was required by the | job. | | See construction for example, you don't see women in | construction. | | Traditionally, if we talk about the entire World, means | since at least hominids have settled down and started | farming. | | Luckily things are changing, but there's still the | question: do really women want that? | | I'm not questioning their abilited here, but the idea | that having the choice they would chose to be part of | something that men have built in their image at their | rules. | | For example in Scandinavia where gender equality is | higher than everywhere else in the western World, women | are less keen to attend STEM faculties because they are | too hard for too little reward. They can make more money | working as lawyers or for the government, having also | more time to do what they like, including spending it | raising their kids and with their families. Once they | reached equality (same opportunities) they started to | chose because they don't have to prove anything to the | others. | | EDIT: if you think about it we Italians are usually | laughed of because we live with our "mamma" and talk a | lot about the "famiglia", we are " those lazy Italians" | but that's the reason why being a housewife here it's not | a stigma. Housewives are not rewarded enough in Italy, | but being one it's not the end of your social life. On | the contrary in USA (in particular) not working to death | is frowned upon, free time is for the lazy people, "work | hard and the American dream will come true", these are | the kinds of " traditions " that make it impossible to be | a woman, a mother and a successful business woman, to the | point that paid maternity leave is not even a right! | | Here in Italy, which is not the best country in the World | about maternity policies, women have 5 mandatory months | of paid maternity leave during which they can't be at | work, it's mandatory that they abstein from it. The | period can be extended if the medical conditions require | (or suggest) it. | | Paradoxically younger generations that grew up on social | media immersed in American culture, see things the same | way and have a very hard time accepting that not being | highly succesful at work (or in general) is not the end | of the World and they also think that being an housewife | is a failure. | | full disclosure: there haven't been housewives in my | family at least in the past three generations, so I am | not saying it because I wish for women to stay home and | take care of the kids. | Karawebnetwork wrote: | > See construction for example, you don't see women in | construction. | | Three of my close friends are women in the construction | industry and my cousin is a car mechanic. My best friend | who is male works as a secretary and my uncle is a nurse. | | People will works on things that passionate them when | they have the freedom to do so. There is no such thing as | a gendered job. | | I am familiar with the gender equality paradox and | personally believe that it's causes are socioeconomic and | not about "not having the stress" to "emulate men". | Especially since Nordic countries have a higher | percentage of women in parliament which I would argue is | "traditionally" a man's role. | africanboy wrote: | > Three of my close friends are women in the construction | industry | | anecdotes aside | | _Women working in construction numbered 1.5 percent of | the entire U.S. workforce_ | | they also earn only 80 of the men's pay on average. | | > and my uncle is a nurse. | | and so was my father, for 42 years. There are cultural | differences in the World, as a low payd job there is less | incentive for men in USA, only 13% of nurse are men, in | Italy about 30% of them is a man. | | But in Italy 80% of teachers up to high school are women, | for example, still today. | | Because traditionally education is a women's role. | | We think (or thought) they do it better. | kmclean wrote: | This! Women who get into business or tech or whatever aren't | "emulating men". Many are actually genuinely interested in | those pursuits. A lot of women just do not want to be | homemakers. Many do, sure, and it should be a viable option | without stigma, but for at least half it would be hell and we | should allow women to pursue their interests and desires. | africanboy wrote: | I don't think that the intention was that, but since we are | commenting on an article that suggest to women to "freeze | their eggs" while pursuing a carreer as a founder, it's | probably honest to acknowledge the fact that men don't need | to freeze their eggs if they want to have kids later in their | lives and can have them while pursuing a career because, in | some countries more than others, like in the US for example, | women are highly penalized for the fact that they can get | pregnant. | | So it's less a men's problem than it is a women's problem. | elliekelly wrote: | > I think women have largely been presented a false promise by | progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do | what men do to be their equal. It's not necessarily anybody's | fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish | we could structure society in a way such that the value of | raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and | understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frowned | upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma | is healthy. Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable? | | Why ask these questions only as they relate to women and | motherhood? Why haven't men being presented a false promise | that value and purpose is derived from work? Being a father | without a snazzy career is equally (if not more so) frowned | upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma | is healthy, either. Why do men have to emulate other men to be | "valuable"? Why do men have to _avoid_ emulating women to be | "valuable"? | | > Couple that with the fact that depression is most prevalent | among childless women in their 40s | | I don't know your source for this but you should at least | consider the possibility that women, particularly women with | financial resources (childless women in their 40s, for | example), are _significantly_ more likely to seek mental health | treatment compared to similarly situated men. Correlation is | not causation and more women being treated for depression does | not necessarily mean more women are depressed. | mfer wrote: | > Why ask these questions only as they relate to women and | motherhood? Why haven't men being presented a false promise | that value and purpose is derived from work? Being a father | without a snazzy career is equally (if not more so) frowned | upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that | stigma is healthy, either. Why do men have to emulate other | men to be "valuable"? Why do men have to avoid emulating | women to be "valuable"? | | +1000 this | | Have you noticed that it's leaders focused on their | businesses and capitalism that we turn to when we look for | definition of value and purpose. Those folks who are looking | for our productivity that feeds their wealth. | | Maybe we should look for our value and priorities somewhere | other than these folks. | TuringTest wrote: | _> Have you noticed that it 's leaders focused on their | businesses and capitalism that we turn to when we look for | definition of value and purpose. Those folks who are | looking for our productivity that feeds their wealth._ | | _> Maybe we should look for our value and priorities | somewhere other than these folks._ | | That may be a strange thing to say at the web forum of a | company _whose whole purpose is to channel young people | towards that mentality_ and the capitalist perspective of | value and purpose. | | So please, say it louder. | jimbokun wrote: | > Me? I would be a stay at home dad in a heartbeat. I love | cooking and homemaking and being there for children. But | practically in my relationship that doesn't make sense so I'm | obligated to work my days away in order to provide for my | family. I think there's this idea that all men love career | life because it pays the bills. | dcow wrote: | 100% agree that any stigma against being a stay at home dad | (viewing the issue from the opposite angle as you ask) is | also unhealthy. In my personal journey, at least, I have not | encountered men who stigmatize my desire to be a stay at home | dad but I have (surprisingly often) encountered women who | stigmatize female homemakers (or the concept thereof). I | guess it's only anecdata there, but I don't think I'm wildly | off base with my experience. | yourapostasy wrote: | _> ...encountered women who stigmatize female | homemakers..._ | | I've read plenty of rants from both genders of stay-at-home | dads getting snubbed by stay-at-home moms from their play | groups, brunches, and other social activities. I think the | stigma against stay-at-home dads hasn't gone away, just | shifted to different venues. | Nextgrid wrote: | > Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable? | | I don't think it's a men vs women issue. | | Our current society is structured in such a way that work is | necessary to survive & thrive - it is usually not possible to | take a lengthy break from work without financial & career | consequences. | | Whether you are taking that break for childcare or (to pick a | typical men's stereotype) drinking beer & having BBQ's with | your friends every day doesn't make a difference. | giantg2 wrote: | "I think there's this idea that all men love career life | because it pays the bills. In reality it's far from a pipe | dream existence." | | I completely agree. | vbtemp wrote: | > I think women have largely been presented a false promise by | progressives | | There's a lot of sneering and judgment by women, toward women | who choose to be a stay at home mom and not have a career. | yourapostasy wrote: | _> There 's a lot of sneering and judgment by women..._ | | Do you think they would feel differently if the bar to owning | a home was lowered to one-income household, 20% DTI, 20-year | mortgage, no more than 3% interest, 10% down, no PMI? I | suspect a lot of distortions come from a very misaligned | house purchase requirements to income availability picture. | TuringTest wrote: | The value behind that attitude is that it _is_ a problem to | think that _women_ are the ones expected to choose staying- | at-home, when culturally this expectation should be | distributed equally among genders. | LeonardMenard wrote: | Yes, exactly. I am disappointed (but not sneering nor | contemptuous) when I find out that another one of my well- | educated and ambitious female peers has decided to become a | stay-at-home mom. Not because I don't think it's a valuable | or valid role to play, but because I have absolutely zero | equivalent male peers who have done the same thing. | | Another well-educated women who choose to give up her | career and stay at home, without a corresponding man doing | the same, is just another data point that makes MY career | look invalid, and sees MY career as optional. | | Like, more power to her, but it does make me sad at the | state of society. | vbtemp wrote: | All of the time when I hear that commentary, it has to do | with them finding stay-at-home moms unintelligent, petty, | vapid. | kmclean wrote: | Interestingly, single, childless women are also the happiest | population demographic. | | (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-h.. | .) | | I don't disagree homemaking should be less stigmatized, but the | real problem is American startup culture that expects this kind | of around-the-clock all-in hustle mentality. The vast majority | of businesses are actually just small firms with a few people | that make a decent living. That's the lifestyle that should be | celebrated and desirable. There's no reason running a business | can't be compatible with having a family, we just need to re- | define what it looks like to run a company. The focus should be | on sustainability and balance, not growth at any cost. | landryraccoon wrote: | I wonder what the data looks like if you regress happiness | onto age for single women. | | I have no difficulty believing single, childless women are | very happy in their 20s and 30s. I wonder though if that | rapidly changes past 40. | | I would hypothesize the same effect happens for men as well. | dpoochieni wrote: | What did you expect them to say? That they are unhappy. I | take this kind of investigation with a pinch of salt. It can | be a case of the ladies doth protest too much of their | happiness. In my personal experience, many complain of | loneliness as they grow older. | enko123 wrote: | Not remotely believable. | danbolt wrote: | What makes you feel that way? Do you think the narrative | might be more complicated than what the parent suggests? | Barrin92 wrote: | I don't think this is some false progressive promise at all. | Work is freedom and independence. Through work people express | themselves at a cognitive and creative level. | | It's not just about 'snazzy careers'. It's about self- | realization. When given the choice in countries with tons of | generous child welfare policies like in much of Europe, women | still defer pregnancy and prefer to get an education or a job, | and I don't blame them because honestly most people grow tired | of being a stay-at-home parent very quickly. It's just a | menial, not really inspiring, and not very social job. | | I know a lot of guys who said the same thing you said, that | they'd love to stay at home. All who did now work again full- | time, some even admitted directly to me how much they hated it | after only a few months and how much they missed work. | | I think this attempt to romanticize stay-at-home parenting is | basically cultural nostalgia. It's also interesting that you | frame it as a women's job as others have pointed out, because | the only reason women had to do it in the past is because they | didn't get much of a say in the matter. | core-questions wrote: | > Of course women should follow their heart and we should build | a society that allows them to do so on equal terms, but we | should not discourage homemaking and stigmatize people who want | to raise children. | | I think that many women do actually have the desire to be | mothers in their hearts, and that they repress this desire in | the current social context because having children is no longer | something that confers high status upon you. | | Changing that would fix the birth rate. As a man, I do actually | feel empowered and somehow more complete and grounded by virtue | of having a family; but I know that before I had kids, I didn't | really look at dads that way. Changing that perception, | returning the family to a position of honor rather than just | portraying it as a drag that stops you from doing all the great | fun stuff out there in the world, would do wonders on that | front. | | Sometimes it feels like a concerted effort has taken place to | knock the family off of the pedestal. | david-gpu wrote: | Somebody is down voting you, possibly because of the non- | gender-neutral language, but I agree with your message: we | currently overvalue wealth and job status and undervalue the | joy of raising a family. | | I switched to a 4-day week to find a better work-life balance | and couldn't be happier. Time with my kids is more valuable | than the salary cut. | core-questions wrote: | I get downvoted continually because I post edgy things like | "eating meat is okay" and "you should consider having a | family" etc. I'm used to it, comment karma is largely | meaningless, and sometimes the rate limiting helps make | sure I have composed my thoughts well before responding. | | Very envious of your 4-day week! I do 6-7 days worth of | work in 5 days and it's slowly killing me. Still finding | time for the kids somehow, but the result is no sleep or | recreation time for myself... the switch from office to WFH | life has not been a blessing in terms of work/life balance. | david-gpu wrote: | Been there, done that. Burned out. Twice. | | Eventually learned that I can't achieve everything I want | on every facet of my life. I am not superhuman. The day | only has 24 hours. | | Something had to give. I was in a position in which I | could afford to work less, so that's what I did. Now I'm | mediocre at a few things in my life rather than being | great at one at the cost of everything else, and I | couldn't be happier with that decision. | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | > In order to have a society of power career couples, someone | has to raise their kids. [... Y]ou have to find someone [...] | to be your nanny [...]. I don't see how that's a sustainable | narrative [...]. | | Bomb some more countries. Make some more refugees. Problem | solved. | | In England, when the aspiring middle classes started finding it | impossible to afford servants (which was a problem, because | that was a key mark of their status), they started taking in | kids from workhouses to serve them, and made it out to be some | kind of charity. When that ran out they started up guest worker | programs. A notable one took poor Jewish women fleeing a | certain German government. Win-win, right? | madamelic wrote: | >I think people have largely been presented a false promise: | value and purpose is derived from working outside the home. | | FTFY. | | As you state further in, it's not women's exclusive job to be | child-rearing nor is it not 'work' to maintain and run a house. | silvestrov wrote: | You'll have to accept that running a house is _much_ less | work today than it was 150 years ago when there was no | fridge, no hover, no washing mashine, no ready-made food. | | Today a single mom with full time job can still run a (not | too big) house. | | So to be fullfilling there has to be more than just keeping | the house clean and people fed, which is probably why so many | upper-upper-middle class women have a part-time job running | some kind of fashion store. | sturgill wrote: | > Today a single mom with full time job can still run a | (not too big) house. | | Until COVID hits and children have to be taught virtually | from home. | | There are no easy and cheap answers here, but a series of | trade offs. I think the original question is "where is the | conversation of the trade off?" I don't think it's settled | that the ideal social structure involves a dual income | family. And I think very few people envy the workload | required of single mothers, regardless of technical | advances that make cleaning a home easier. | | Caregiving goes well beyond making sure the kids have clean | underwear. | [deleted] | rcpt wrote: | In other nations where the state provides good childcare women | have historically entered the workforce just fine. | | It's the US (and especially California) that drains everything | possible from young families. | ummonk wrote: | And a good chunk of the women entering the workforce then | work for the state providing childcare for other women's | children. | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | You do get a roughly 20:1 economy of scale though, which is | tough to sneeze at. And you might be able to scale that up | even more with iPads. | | Have you seen videos of orphaned animals that bond with | stuffed toys or socks or whatever? Cue a DeepDream | hallucination triggered by the word "ma-ma": The perfect | supernormal stimulus for Baby. Even better than the Peppa | Pig nightmare fuel you can already find on Youtube. Little | Ash A-10 will be too absorbed to miss you in his cute | CarePod. | koverda wrote: | Could you elaborate on why California especially? | nostrademons wrote: | Not OP, but in the major Californian metropolises housing | has a way of sucking out all available resources. There are | lots of people and not enough land, which means that people | have a tendency to bid up the price of available housing up | to the very maximum that they can afford to pay. As a | result, wages are high, but it all goes to landlords or | previous homeowners. | | Worse, this applies down the income ladder, such that | childcare workers, cashiers, waiters, etc. are _also_ | living at the edge of subsistence because of housing. As a | result, the price of these services gets bid up as well. | This affects everybody but tends to affect families more | than singles, because they can 't bunk with roommates and | they require a lot more services that involve paying other | people. | | This isn't really California-specific: families in Eureka, | Merced, and Bakersfield do just fine (except for it being | boring and not having many opportunities). But most people | associate "California" with either the Bay Area or LA, and | both of those metros have lots of money flowing in, lots of | people flowing in, and restrictive zoning that keeps | housing scarce. | rcpt wrote: | No school busses, difficult schedules, insane commutes for | parents, expensive aftercare, super expensive daycare, | super expensive housing. Hell, they used to make kids pay | to play sports until the courts struck that down. | | Mostly because California has prop 13 -- the $30B per year | transfer of wealth from the young or new into the pockets | of Native Sons of the Golden West. | [deleted] | [deleted] | jlos wrote: | I think this is due to at least 2 factors: | | 1) The success of movements for gender equality actually make | the excesses of those movements hard to critique. | | 2) Treating a problem as a choice. The problem is having a home | that is relatively clean with 3 healthy and enjoyable meals a | day for 2 adults and children. Having one adult focus on income | earning while another focuses on household management is a | solution many families find works for them. There are others. 2 | career focused adults with a nanny is an option if those | careers have enough earning power. Some immigrant families here | in Canada will have the entire extended family live in a single | (large) residence. The grandparents do childcare and household | maintenance while all the adults work. | | Most media seem to treat family arrangement as people dictating | their political philosophy onto those less powerful when in | reality the vast majority are managing trade-offs in time, | finances, lifestyle, and career. | | 3) The increasing tendency to optimize society for the upper | end of the wealth distribution. When a woman becomes a fortune | 500 CEO, supreme court judge, or in any other way reaches the | upper echelon of society this is treated as a victory for women | as a identity class, even though such victories have no | material benefit to the 99% of women who lead normal lives near | the median. | | Ideally, society optimizes for the median while allowing | outliers to path to success. But that requires a level of | nuance and flexibility that doesn't seem to have much place in | public life. | wayoutthere wrote: | Fixing this would require raising wages to the point where a | single income can support a family. Until that's the case, both | parents have to work unless you're wealthy (not a high earner; | actually wealthy). I would just ask yourself who in society | benefits from this situation and who loses. It _doesn't_ have | to be this way, but we keep electing politicians who promise to | keep it this way (on both sides of the aisle). | | If the US had a viable left it would be different; but we | don't. Other countries have solved these problems to some | degree. We need to stop acting like taking care of people and | funding social programs is the next step to Stalinism (but | again, think of _who_ is saying this and how it threatens their | power). | soheil wrote: | There is something wrong with the argument that women need to | think of raising kids and staying home as ambitious as anything | anyone does including those working 16 hours/day jobs and | building a career that rewards proportionally, ie. lawyers at | top firms, surgeons etc. | | Incidentally this is orthogonal to if men raise the kids or | women. | | You can't equate the two. The stigma is not entirely | irrational. Raising kids is the default thing humans do, | graduating at the top of your law school and becoming a partner | at Cravath, Swaine & Moore is not. | endisneigh wrote: | I couldn't agree more. I've been wondering if we're moving | further or closer to the ideal you describe. As more excluded | groups move towards unfettered capitalism, I wonder if we'll be | lift with a huge gap to fill in the "bleeding heart" jobs, e.g. | being a home maker, social worker, etc. | mbgerring wrote: | I think the economics of raising children plays a much greater | role than stigma or culture. | austincheney wrote: | Actually, why must the family homemaker necessarily be a woman? | If in a male/female relationship the female is the more | ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver. | Either way raising children still takes time, energy, and focus | that could otherwise pile into something else. | | While there are differences in general approaches males and | females take in raising children I don't think there is any | research indicating females are necessarily _better_ than | males, or the contrary. The reductio ad absurdum of it is that | males tend to be more challenging and females tend to be | nurturing, but those distinctions are highly variable. | foolinaround wrote: | >family homemaker necessarily be a woman | | Women, making a broad assumption, seem to have the traits | (honed over millemia) of watching over the family. | | But in a household, if the husband and wife exhibit the | opposite traits, then that must be encouraged too. | | I know of a family in which the woman is the bread-winner, | the husband takes care of the kids and home, and both are | happy. | dcow wrote: | 1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting | that there's a stigma against women performing that role | today. | | 2. The problem is exactly with the characterization (that you | made) of the "more ambitious" route being the career route. | Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than | wanting to raise a healthy family? | david-gpu wrote: | > I am highlighting that there's a stigma against women | performing that role today | | That is true, but there's an even bigger stigma against men | who want to perform that role. Sure, you may find a very | career-driven spouse who would be happy with you taking the | role of the caregiver, but that is not a common occurrence. | The man who does not provide substantial income to the | family will find it much harder to find a partner than a | woman in the same situation. Talking about heterosexual | couples here, of course. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting | that there's a stigma against women performing that role | today. | | I'm not aware of any stigma from women being stay at home | moms. My impression is that most, if not all, people are | aware that money gives you power (or freedom, if you will). | And who doesn't like freedom. | | There's also less security of income for everyone, so a | household relying on one spouse's income is risky. | Especially if there's no extended family around that can | come to the rescue in the event of loss of income. | | >Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition | than wanting to raise a healthy family? | | Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy | family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself | with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal. So | I would say there are a lot of incentives for women to | work, but not because society stigmatizes it, but because | it leads to optimal results for women (and men). | dcow wrote: | True about income security. I am interested in a solution | that looks something like the homemaking person operating | as something that resembles a sole proprietorship focused | on the care of children. Not a perfect solution but | something in that vein. | | Re "too easy": I'm not talking about just wanting to | raise a healthy family, the implication is that you | actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work. | | The suggestion that two working parents provides optimal | results is not true or sustainable in my experience and | seems to be the undertone of the discussion: in order to | have both parents working, someone probably sacrificed | their most fertile years to build a resume. And this | isn't necessarily good for the future of our species. | | Is a household with two stable incomes nice? Sure. At the | expense of the woman's fertility.. the sacrifice is | questionable. Would also love to see our society support | mothers of older children who need less immediate care | entering the workforce not just young blood fresh out of | high school and college. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >Re "too easy": I'm not talking about just wanting to | raise a healthy family, the implication is that you | actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work. | | And how do you discern if your potential partner is and | willing to do the hard work? One way is to use the type | of work they do as a proxy. Maybe it's not a good proxy, | but I think it is one in use in much of the dating | market. | | I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but people | are just trying to play with the cards they have, even if | that results in undesirable long term consequences for | society. In the US, I blame all the voters who have | somehow not prioritized parental leave and adequate time | at home with children. I guess many of us want to be able | to shop at grocery stores and eat at restaurants at 9PM | at minimum cost. | david-gpu wrote: | I don't think the GP implied that women must be the | caregivers given that he himself would be happy as a stay-at- | home dad. I think he was just commenting about a common | scenario. | | > If in a male/female relationship the female is the more | ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver | | Why equate "ambition" with "desire for a high-paying career"? | Somebody who wants to raise a family can also feel ambitious | about it. | [deleted] | sir_bearington wrote: | It doesn't. But only 20% of mothers want to work fill time as | compared to 70% of fathers. 30% of mothers want to not work | at all, and 50% want to work part time. | | I don't think the argument here is that women make better | parents than men. Rather, we live in a free society where men | and women make their own choices. And women and men have | substantially different work preferences after becoming a | parent. | | https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- | content/uploads/sites/3/2010/... | [deleted] | jimbokun wrote: | I agree with your general point. | | But would add that in the very early stages: | | 1. Women are the ones who get pregnant, which takes a | physical toll, and maybe makes working super stressful jobs | and long hours ill advised. | | 2. There is a period of time needed for recovering from the | trauma of child birth. | | 2. Many women prefer breast feeding their children. Yes, they | can pump, but may prefer to feed their children er, | "naturally", which means getting up at odd hours of the night | for a period of time. | | 3. If the mother is doing most of the feeding because of | this, it takes time to fully wean the child. And then the | child will likely have a stronger bond with the mother than | the father for a little while after that. | | 4. And maybe the father is now working more hours than the | mother due to the added burdens the mother has, which could | be another reason the child might be more attached to Mom | than Dad at these very young ages. | | 5. Repeat all of the above for the number of children you | plan to have. | | All of which is to say, socialization is a huge factor. But | there are also differences between being a mother and being a | father that are strictly due to biology. | llimos wrote: | 1000% this. | | > Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable? | | Growing up in a "traditional" family, the first thing that | struck me when I went to work at a big investment bank was how | the women did everything they could to be like men - all the | way down to dress. I remember thinking, _this_ is called | equality? That what men traditionally did is clearly so much | better, so women now need to become men, and we should | celebrate the achievement that they are now free to do so? | | I mean, yes, obviously if they want to, the fact that they can | is a good thing. But the fact that they almost _need_ to, is | not. | ARandumGuy wrote: | Did they act and dress like men because of "equality," or | because that's the only way they can actually be taken | seriously? | zo1 wrote: | Sounds like we jumped the gun a bit on that? Maybe we | should have "changed" people's minds and values regarding | gender first before we shoved everyone into a conforming | box, and then wondered about the "consequences" and their | unwillingness to play along. | lambda_obrien wrote: | I like the film short by pixar called "Purl" for this. | [deleted] | judge2020 wrote: | It might not be emulating men as much as it is simply | dressing business casual or business professional because | it's required while in the office. | vmception wrote: | > Being a mother without a snazzy career is frowned upon by | plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma is | healthy. Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable? | | I used to think that, but then I found out that many people | aren't trying to emulate men, they are trying to do a more | encompassing thing, juggling an unprecedented number of roles | and responsibilities surpassing what has been human in nature. | | So, basically, even worse than emulating men. | | My observation is that a lot of this is based on an assumption | that men _want_ to be in corporate careers. As in, pursuing a | corporate /intellectual blue collar or white collar career is | not an optional checkbox of pride for men that want to exchange | time for food and shelter and have a female partner. I think if | this was acknowledged for how it is interdependent in the state | of the world it would help even out representation and many | other strifes, as opposed to gendering the problems and | invalidating problems based on priority. | everdrive wrote: | >is not an optional checkbox of pride for men that want to | exchange time for food and shelter and have a female partner | | This is something that crosses my mind often. Work has some | perks, but I would NEVER have taken a career so seriously if | I never wanted to get married. | giantg2 wrote: | I would have quit my current job years ago if I didn't have | to support my family. | foolinaround wrote: | this is also a big reason why several women who have chosen to | stay home and look after family and kids feel unfulfilled | because many of their peers are seen as more valuable by | society. | | The reason for this unhappiness is then portrayed as the | inability of the women to not have a career. it is often, the | other way around. | everdrive wrote: | Joke's on both parties, huh? Can you imagine feeling | particular pride because you are important in some random | company? | Draiken wrote: | I don't believe this is sexism at its core. The entire west | society is built on the one axiom that work means value. | Everything else is extra. That's even worse in the US. | | I'm in a similar situation where I'd love to be a parent full- | time and be essentially free to live my life. But I could never | do that even if my wife wanted to work and let me stay at home. | With one person's salary, you can't really sustain a house | unless you drastically drop your living standards. It's not | really a choice. | | We have allowed companies to lower the value of work, | drastically forcing every being in a household to work as soon | as possible. Society has bought into this making any choice | that is not work/career feel like a wrong choice. | | Regardless of sex, the problem is the work culture itself. | dolni wrote: | If all companies decided to 4x all salaries tomorrow, the | cost of all the things we pay for would rise drastically, | offsetting whatever extra you're making. | | The answer is not as simple as "companies should just pay | more." | irrational wrote: | It's amazing to me how few women in their 20s are aware of this. | I have a lot of early-20s coworkers. One time I mentioned that | fertility declines greatly past 35. They laughed and thought I | was joking. Why is this not covered in high school health | classes? | vikiomega9 wrote: | I'm not a policy person, so consider this a good faith question. | If government policy mandates larger leave times (both parents), | who eats the cost? I'm guessing the company does and the | government probably provides a tax credit? How do policy people | think about this? | | Say we do have such a policy, what's stopping a hiring manager | from not hiring more women who might be say 30 and more likely to | have kids soon? There's two parts to this question, one if we | have equal leave for both parents, and if we have 2x more leave | for women over men. How do policy people think about these types | of arguments? | | How do policy people think about costs in general for such | government policies? | IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: | I wonder if there are better models that might work with a bit of | help from everyone involved, that don't amount to taking medical | risks and delaying children more than any man ever would? | | Such as: being a founder comes with a lot of work, but also some | power. To the degree that bringing children to work is mostly a | problem of co-workers rolling their eyes, could a confident | founder make them stop doing that? | | Since that would probably still be somewhat stressful, could a | pair of founder-parents pull it off? And/or could on-site | childcare make it work? For a VC-backed startup, the costs | wouldn't seem to be prohibitive? | | (I maybe naive here, considering some of the tales I've heard of | how women are still seen/treated in the industry) | karmasimida wrote: | Wow, that is pretty depressing just hearing your story. I am not | a woman, but I feel like that I can empathize with you from your | words. | | Work isn't everything, and it is gradually and painful | realization as you grew older. | bennysonething wrote: | My wife went through the hell of a lot of failed rounds of IVF. | It's way worse for a woman. It was bad for me in a different way, | and not nearly as bad as what my wife had to do. However this was | our choice, I don't demand that the world should change to help. | She works a zero contract min wage job. We didn't demand anything | of anyone else we had our own goals. | | Edit: my heart goes out to anyone suffering through IVF. | | Edit 2: we got lucky, she gave birth at 38. Anyone else going | through this I'd recommend a book called it starts with the egg. | | PS I keep saying "she" because it wouldnt be true to say "we". I | didn't suffer my body getting fucked up with hormones. | draw_down wrote: | This is really sad to read. If you want children, I can only | imagine that's ultimately more important than having some company | to run. | | Realizing opportunities are foreclosed to you as you age is | always sad, but this one seems really tough. | Kye wrote: | The title is heavily editorialized. I know the submitter is the | writer, but it's still completely different. | mattlondon wrote: | I wish when I was younger I just had kids early when my career | was at the "bums on seats" stage and I didn't have much | responsibility. | | Now I am older and more senior, I have more responsibilities and | the expectations are higher so it is more "difficult" to dedicate | more time to my offspring by taking more time off or just not | going to late meetings etc. | | Of course there is some power that comes with more seniority to | simply say no to things outside of the normal office hours or not | "taking one for the team" or whatever to do a late night or a | weekender. | | I guess there is an element of me thinking "If I had just done | this 10 years ago it would have been a lot easier now" sort of | hindsight type thing going on, but yeah it is difficult to shake | the thought that I waited too long. Not just for work but also | for normal social life/holidaying etc too - like if you had kids | in your early 20s you could have had teenage kids (who can look | after themselves) and yet be in your 30s and still be young | enough to do fun/crazy things, rather than be 55-60 with teenage | kids and then be too old to do a lot of stuff you used to enjoy | (e.g. sports, social scene etc) although the flip side is you got | to spend those 20s-30s years doing fun stuff anyway .... as you | can see I am conflicted :) | | tl;dr - if you are young, there is never a time when you are 100% | "ready" for kids so just go ahead and do it before it is too | late. | vecplane wrote: | Wait, why is the advice to 'do something invasive, risky, and | unnatural' when the actual advice should be 'have children when | you're younger, not older.' | pattt wrote: | I personally agree with your sentiment but the two provided | advice examples are not comparable, it's not just about giving | a birth but also raising your kids which can give your career a | good break. Incidentally this perspective also reveals our sad | state of priorities. | bradleybuda wrote: | You shouldn't refrigerate your food. It's risky and unnatural. | For the first 300,000 years of human history, people got along | fine without refrigeration - why don't you just hunt and gather | like you were intended to? | | IVF, egg and embryo freezing, and related technologies are | modern miracles that allow people to live better lives by | increasing their fertility options. | vecplane wrote: | That's an obvious false equivalence. While technically | 'unnatural' refrigeration is not 'invasive and risky.' | | The vast majority of pre-modern humans were likely starving | or malnourished, and those problems are mostly solved in the | modern era, thanks in part to refrigeration. | | We don't really have good solutions for women trying to have | children into their 40s, though I fully support the | advancement of fertility technologies! But still the *best* | advice is to have children when you're younger. | depressedpanda wrote: | > The vast majority of pre-modern humans were likely | starving or malnourished, and those problems are mostly | solved in the modern era, thanks in part to refrigeration. | | What makes you think that? I find it more likely that early | hominids fared about as well as contemporary chimpanzees. | Some starving, some being malnourished, but definitely not | a vast majority. | dolni wrote: | "Got along fine" with half of the life expectancy, or less. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Refrigeration works. Food lasts longer when refrigerated | because cold temperatures slow down the growth of bacteria | and other organisms. In order for metabolism to occur, | enzymes are necessary. Enzymes have an optimal operating | temperature. It is a biochemical fact that the reaction rate | of those enzymes will be slowed down by a refrigerator, | slowing down the metabolism of organisms and the spoiling of | food. | | IVF is not a miracle. It's a last resort that doesn't even | guarantee results. With IVF women have _a chance_ to have | children. The probability of success is always inferior | compared to healthy women choosing to have children early. By | choosing this route, these women face a significant risk of | failure with serious consequences. | | A lot of couples want to have children but do not succeed. | IVF can help these people overcome real fertility issues. It | was never meant to be used as an insurance policy by people | with no medical impediment to reproduction. | ImprobableTruth wrote: | Because your actual advice also implicitly includes a 'just | give up on having a career' part. | matheusmoreira wrote: | So? Does that make it bad advice? | liveoneggs wrote: | no it doesn't. | ImprobableTruth wrote: | Look up 'motherhood penalty'. The wage gap between mothers | and non-mothers is massive. | imwillofficial wrote: | Because that would violate the "I want to have my cake and eat | it too" mantra. "I want to make massive life altering choices | and suffer no 2nd order effects." "I want to handicap others to | compensate for my decisions" | | It's selfish, unfair, and morally wrong. When did the smart way | of doing things in alignment with nature, become old, | antiquated, and dumb? | | I find the ignorant snobbishness of our modern world to be | insane. | ImprobableTruth wrote: | Because society actively punishes people who do so. If having | a child in your twenties is career suicide, it's only natural | that people who aren't willing to give up their career | prospects to have a child (would you?) will try to postpone | it. | smoldesu wrote: | And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline. | Our nation-wide workaholism is making family life an increasingly | distant fantasy. I've had this discussion with my S/O before, and | we've always come to the same conclusion: it would be | irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working. | That's a difficult place to be in, considering we're both quite | passionate about our jobs. It makes me quite depressed to watch | my chance at parenthood slowly pass me by, perhaps for good this | time. | cronix wrote: | There are 2 young married couples (mid 20's) in my immediate | family who cannot get pregnant naturally, and they really want | to and have been trying for multiple years. The issue is bigger | than who is doing what job. Something external, likely | environmental, is messing with our biology as it's happening | all over the world, not just here. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/15/world-population-falling-fer... | Aaargh20318 wrote: | > And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline | | We're at 7.8 billion humans on this planet and rising. I don't | think we have to worry about the birth rate declining. If | anything, we should do everything in our power to lower it as | much as we can. | MauranKilom wrote: | While that's fundamentally true, it's not like humanity would | fare particularly well 50 years in the future if everyone | stopped having children for 20 years right now. | zo1 wrote: | Most of Africa would do a whole lot better if their birth | rates declined rapidly. They still have huge child | mortality rates despite the advances in the west and all | the aid that comes from that. These things take time to | make their way to all corners of the remote world. | Rompect wrote: | Then why are we continually sending aid to Africa which just | powers their insane child boom? | evnc wrote: | If we lower the birth rate below replacement (roughly 2 | children per couple), humanity will die out. This is not a | desirable outcome. | | If the answer is, "well, the birth rate will never lower | _that_ far, because _some_ people are going to keep having | children " -- who will those people be? (Do you presume to be | able to choose who gets to have children and who does not?) | | Aren't those some people then doing a great service, keeping | humanity alive? Shouldn't we value their efforts, and give | them support? | | Also, drastically lowering birth rates has negative effects | on demographics and economies (e.g. a population pyramid | heavily weighted toward the elderly, without enough young | people to do the work of taking care of them, or the | productive work of maintaining and improving society | generally). | landryraccoon wrote: | I don't see how well educated, career oriented people having | fewer children will meaningfully reduce the birth rate. | | The data I've seen shows that poorer countries and families | tend to have a _higher_ birth rate than wealthier countries | and families. To abstain from having children as a well | educated, well off individual because you want the global | population to drop is like not drinking a glass of water when | you 're thirsty because there's a drought, while farmers | consume thousands of acre feet of water. It's not rational. | DavidVoid wrote: | Although I won't have children myself, I'm very glad that I | live in a country (Sweden) where we have 480 days of parental | leave (and each parent has an exclusive right to 90 of those | days). | | Yes, you don't get paid as much during those days (~80%), but | it allows parents (not just mothers) to stay home for longer | periods of time to raise their children. It can ofc cause some | disturbances in your career (especially if you're working at a | startup), but it allows for a much better work-life balance | than parents can get in the states. | manmal wrote: | Sounds like you are selling your best years for a certain | amount of money and lifestyle. | giantg2 wrote: | Isn't that the gist of all jobs? | core-questions wrote: | > it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us | are working. | | Why have you convinced yourself of this? You do realize that | the vast majority of families have both parents working. Is it | irresponsible for all of us to have done so? | | I too struggled with the fear before having children. Fear that | it would ruin my personal life, my fun, my recreation; fear | that lack of sleep would kill me; fear that I wouldn't be any | good at it. All of it unfounded, as the instincts we are all | born with kicked in and gave me the strength I needed to adapt. | | You can do both. In fact, if your work is already taking over | your life to the extent where you can't imagine having the time | for children, there's a strong chance your quality of life will | _improve_ because the children will force you (and give you an | emininently socially acceptable excuse to) step back and change | how your time is allocated. | | Specifically, as far as adoption is concerned, you're also | faced with knowing that you could provide an excellent home for | someone who may very well end up in a much worse situation | otherwise. The horror stories of people who adopt children just | to get a cheque... you personally can make a difference on this | front. | | All of this wealth flows to us working in tech, more than most | of our ancestors ever had... to not use our security to raise | good children is at once both a waste of ten thousand years of | sacrifice, and also a shirking of our own personal | responsibility to society. I know that social contract feels | like it's breaking down, but it is only through our actions | that we can mend it, and raising good children who still | believe in civil society is probably one of the best ways of | doing that. | | Your chance is not over unless you choose for it to be. | munificent wrote: | _> it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us | are working._ | | You are falling into the classic nerd trap which is doing an | absolute evaluation when you should be making a relative | comparison. | | The question is not, "Can I raise this adopted child in the | optimal way?" The question is, "Will I raise this child at | least as good as the other parents they are likely to end up | with instead?" | | It's not like if you don't adopt them they get whisked away to | a magical realm populated full of only perfect parents. Also, | _your_ parents weren 't perfect but you probably turned out OK. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | I have learned that making relative comparisons is useless if | you are not at the average. | | If you are more capable than the average person, sure you can | settle for an around average outcome, but that is very | unsatisfying. | | The way I perceive things is that I'm going to do something, | I'll do it really well or not at all. | bigyikes wrote: | I generally agree with your sentiment. However, I would say | that this type of consideration is only useful when | deciding to birth a child, not if you are considering | adoption. In the latter case, the child is assumed to | already exist in below-average circumstances. | david-gpu wrote: | Holding ourselves to impossibly high standards leads to | dissatisfaction. | | Accepting that we will sometimes be mediocre at what we do | and knowing that we will do better over time is a healthier | alternative. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | "Impossibly high standards" are different for every | person. | | I fully expect to be mediocre at something when I start | doing it, but I also expect to progress past being | mediocre otherwise I see little point in doing that | thing. | verisimilidude wrote: | This is especially true when it comes to raising kids. | Children have their own personalities. Some will be | introverts and others will be party animals. Some will be | quiet and others will make trouble. If a person goes into | the job of parenthood with perfect preparation and | explicit expectations, then failure is guaranteed. | | The best approach requires some level of improvisation; | we learn each child's tendencies, accept them for who | they are, and try to mold them into the best versions of | themselves. I don't see a way to prepare for this. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | I have no expectations of parenthood, but I want to be | able to give my children (Assuming I have any) a large | portion of my attention to try and nurture them as best | as I can. | | That is what I mean by "doing it well" in terms of | parenthood. | | This is partly driven by me viewing the education system | as failing children, and also me wanting to try and | impart more knowledge upon my children. | munificent wrote: | _> sure you can settle for an around average outcome,_ | | Evaluating only a single outcome and deciding whether or | not it is "average" is still doing an absolute evaluation | and falling into the same trap. | | The actionable question is not, "How good of an outcome | will I get if I do X?" It's "How will the outcome of doing | X compare to the outcome of doing Y or Z instead?" | | I am in absolute terms a well below average medical | practitioner. I haven't even taken a first aid class since | I was a Boy Scout. Imagine I'm at the scene of a car crash | and someone is bleeding out. Should I help? According to | the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do | it at all", I should keep my hands clean. | | But if I'm the only person on the scene and they're about | to die, trying a little direct pressure is better than | nothing. My well-below-average in absolute terms medical | care is the _best_ choice because all of the other options | are terrible. | | Maybe because we tend to be perfectionists, but I often see | here on HN people completely underestimating how bad the | alternative outcomes can be. Like they say about self- | driving cars: the robot doesn't have to be perfect, just | better than a human. | | You don't have to have the best solution, just the least | bad one. | goatcode wrote: | Reminder that a few hundred years ago, people typically worked a | few months out of the year, and were able to live the whole year. | The source(s) of the reason(s) we need to work nearly 5/7 of the | year now is one element of why this is even an issue. | nickdothutton wrote: | A 2016 study of 1,171 IVF cycles using frozen eggs found that, | for women under 30, each egg retrieved had a 8.67% chance of | resulting in a child; for women over 40, that chance dropped to | less than 3% per egg at best. More likely closer to 1%. Reminder: | If you are a woman, plan on having children in your 20s. If | you've frozen your eggs you've probably wasted your money. | frEdmbx wrote: | >But nothing is as awful as it not working out. | | It only makes sense to plan, and have some sort of strategy. For | those who feel it's their best option to freeze eggs, do it | sooner rather than later. For young women who have more options, | consider that if you both want to have a family, and want to have | a business, one of the two things has a time sensitive deadline. | You can choose to pursue a career, and go about it the way this | lady suggests, or you can have a family first, and pursue your | career for the rest of your life. Whatever you decide to do, | consider your options, and formulate some sort of strategy. If | you just put off considering what you want, and how you'll | attain, you'll wake up one day realizing it's too late. | em-bee wrote: | wasn't there a study that suggested that more successful startup | founders are in their 40s? | | so have kids in your 20s and build your startup when the kids are | old enough. use your life experience and increase your chances of | success. | astan wrote: | Your whole blog resonates deeply with me. All this corporate | grifting and women's empowerment months will do jack shit until | we figure out how to make workplaces and lives more equitable for | mothers and allowing for gaps, breaks and destigmatizing time off | for parents of both genders. | | Instead, we talk about how sexism is the biggest problem. Sure, | sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something | that creates a genuine barrier for women. | | Startups have it worst, and everday I count the number of years I | have to work in the high stress places I want or do a startup if | I want to have two kids before 35. No one talks about planning | around fertility. When I mention it to someone that I want to | take time off for a couple years to have children in silicon | valley, they look at me as if I'm an alien. As if wanting to be | pregnant and not working at the same time as being sleep deprived | and wanting to spend time with my own baby when they are at their | youngest is some strange outlandish fantasy. | | All careers are built this way. PhD to tenure, startups, | generally high stress professions. I wish the world wasn't so | male centric, that feminists actually cared about finding | structural solutions instead of forcing women to become copies of | men to achieve gender parity. But they care more about power than | actual equality where we acknowledge that women have different | needs and desires, that those needs and desires are equally | valuable and not inferior to desires men have, that the two | genders have different strengths and capabilities and it is | equally important to reward both. And maybe not wanting to | outsource your baby to a nanny during their most vulnerable years | is not a heretical thought. | | I wish we had more focus in allowing people to transition back | from taking a few years off to raise young kids, and it wasn't | automatically assumed that you would be a worse founder or | professor or software engineer just because you have 2-4 years | you didn't commercially work. Hell, I want to take that time to | contribute to open source, something I don't get to do much | usually and I'm looking forward to it because I am willing to | face the consequences. But I wish more women could be less scared | of their career prospects for choosing to have children. | jancsika wrote: | > Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly | something that creates a genuine barrier for women. | | HN is to technical discussions what ____ is to social | discussions. | | Please fill in the blank. | | Serious question, and thanks to any serious respondents! | as300 wrote: | Unfortunately I just don't think it's a tenable position to | assert that women (or men) should be able to take 2-4 years off | of work and not be disadvantaged in their career for doing so. | | I wholeheartedly support the idea that, as a society, we ought | to value childcare/child-rearing and (perhaps monetarily) | support those who perform this service. But I don't believe | corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that. | ljf wrote: | Genuine question, who should? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | The society as a whole seems to be as300's idea - which, in | practice, means the government. If parents give up 10% of | their career in order to give their kids a better | childhood, are we willing to pay to make it up to them? My | money is on "no way". | | If not that, the only other answer is the parents. Are you | as parents willing to give your kids a better childhood at | the price of throwing away 10% of your career, with no | (monetary) compensation? I suspect, very few. (More will do | so with only one parent giving up the years.) | | "You can have it all" is a lie. You can't both have a | wonderful career, a great marriage, _and_ give your kids | all they need from their parents. You can 't. What we | really need is for people to stop believing that "having it | all" is possible, and therefore expecting that someone owes | it to them. Instead, people need to prioritize and choose | what they want out of the tradeoffs that reality imposes. | sangnoir wrote: | > You can't both have a wonderful career, a great | marriage, and give your kids all they need from their | parents. What we really need is for people to stop | believing that "having it all" is possible, and therefore | expecting that someone owes it to them. | | I think the brutal/ultra-competitive work culture is | uniquely American - Europe seems to do OK with giving | working parents generous amounts of time (and money!) to | be with their kids; 4 weeks PTO per year is unthinkable | in the US, but I'm sure its a multiplier for good | parenting. | | I do not know if it is possible to change the work- | culture when money is king. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Four weeks vacation, and 6 months (?) parental leave. | Four years is a big reach, even for Europe. | | But yes, Europe does much better at this than the US. Can | the US culture change enough to give what Europe gives? | Maybe, but I'm doubtful. | | But until it does, my point remains - in the world we | actually live in, you can't have it all. You have to | choose between various less-than-what-you-want options. | tastygreenapple wrote: | I think there's a well of volunteers. | | I'm doing pretty well financially, enough so that I could | support a family. I just can't find a partner who wants to | start a family. I know there are a lot of people like me in | my peer group. | yibg wrote: | Depends on how you look at having children I think. If you: | | 1) See having children as a right and benefit to society, | then society should shoulder at least some of the "burden" | of it. By providing child care, (paid) maternity and | paternity leave etc. Many countries already do this. | | 2) See having children as a privilege and a choice made by | individuals knowing there will be sacrifices in time, | finances, career etc. In this case, the individual (or | couple) deals with the consequences. In some cases, | incentives can align such that companies provide paid | leave, but at least right now it's not the norm. | | Looking at countries that provide paid leave vs those that | don't, the ones that do seems to have a healthier society. | afaejzjfiefia wrote: | > it wasn't automatically assumed that you would be a worse | founder or professor or software engineer just because you have | 2-4 years you didn't commercially work. | | Is there any scenario in life were someone with 2-4 more years | of experience (maybe 50% more at that point in time) isn't more | valued for their greater experience? What is the difference | between a junior and senior engineers salary for instance? A 4 | year break is possibly worse in that regard. | sokoloff wrote: | I think there are two ways to look at the quoted statement. | Is person A with 2 years of professional software development | experience and a 2 year gap about the same [on average across | a large population] as person B who has 2 years professional | software development experience and no gap? Person B is | slightly more valued by virtue of recency of experience, but | 3 months from now, once the rust is knocked off person A, I'd | expect them to be basically the same so I'd value them the | same in hiring. | | Now, is person C who has 4 years of software development | experience, no gap, more skilled and capable at software | development than person A who has 2 years of software | experience and then a 2 year gap or person B who has 2 years | and no gap? Absolutely, and I'd expect C to be quite | rationally valued more highly in the software development | market. Person C has twice as much directly relevant | experience at a time in career where the curve is still | rising quickly. | xyzzy123 wrote: | I'm pretty biased, but it would depend on the role. | | Thinking that parenting is not "experience", or that it has | no commercial relevance is (in my opinion) a mistake. | | Many roles, I suspect a candidate with 4 years of SWE and 4 | years of parenting could be a more valuable team member than | a candidate with 8 years of just SWE. Parenting does not | universally develop emotional maturity and wider | perspectives, but I believe there's a correlation. | | Disclaimer: Of course, individual differences swamp any other | factor, so always take each person as they come. | hycaria wrote: | I am female too and I really don't relate to this kind of | discourse. | | If you're really that into high pressure job and grinding the | ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a | sahm ? You can't do everything at once. No one is stopping you | from raising children but yourself. Many don't go for the | business route and that's a respectable choice but of course | you can't have it all. If in the end your fertility is more | important than your career then have kids without making a fuss | about it. Especially if you know that for some ecologically | unreasonable reason you want numerous kids then start early. | | Also I've seen so many female acquaintances wanting to keep up | their old life ambitions and eventually just never go back | there because child rearing became more important than anything | (and sometimes their sole motivation left in life). How can you | be so sure you won't fall for this ? Especially if you aspire | at staying at home for a few years, it seems a higher | predisposition to stay in that state forever than when you long | for your office job. | | Because some manage to do it both and it seems right that they | be rewarded for it. | | With kids you just have to focus on a few priorities with the | time you have left and if it really is software then one will | find the motivation to cultivate it and to make it work. Heck | we have the perfect job for it you can remote you can freelance | you can contribute ... But talking about aspirations not | pursued without a kid to be developed while child rearing when | you will have even less time sounds like a fantasy to me. | lazyasciiart wrote: | You don't understand why people can have multiple, | potentially incompatible ambitions, and talk about the major | obstacles that exist to achieving them and how to get around | them instead of just giving up? That seems like a fundamental | limitation in your own understanding of people. | lr4444lr wrote: | _that the two genders have different strengths and | capabilities_ | | Even the concept of two genders is under attack, let alone | whether they have categorical behavior patterns. | antisthenes wrote: | > All this corporate grifting and women's empowerment months | will do jack shit until we figure out how to make workplaces | and lives more equitable for mothers and allowing for gaps, | breaks and destigmatizing time off for parents of both genders. | | Exactly this. Generous maternity leave and at least 0.25x | paternity leave. I am not a woman, so I can't possibly begin to | imagine how tough pregnancy is on a body. I also really doubt | that anyone is _really_ focused on work in the months | immediately following birth. | | You can't buy baby food and bond with it with a pink ribbon or | with the fact that your company's board of directors is 50% | female. | | Lack of parental leaves is just young parents subsidizing | unsavory capitalistic practices and outright greed. | pc86 wrote: | There's zero legitimate reason to gender parental leave | either way. Not because "muh equality" or sexism or anything | like that, but it should be "new kid == _n_ weeks leave, " | whether you're the biological mother, father, adoptive | parent, had a biological child via surrogate, whatever. | hksh wrote: | Totally agree. | | I experienced a variation on that and learned pregnancy is | not a vector space. My wife carried twins so when I asked | about the "new kid == n weeks of leave" it was _not_ | multiplicative. I only got n and not 2n. Boo. | Nimitz14 wrote: | Best of luck calming the baby down without the mother. | triceratops wrote: | Why? | | There are times when a baby just wants mom and nobody | else will do. But there also also times when a baby just | wants dad (or grandma/grandpa/nanny/other caregiver) and | nobody else will do. Babies are just weird sometimes. | | Other than those specific cases, calming a baby is mostly | a matter of your skill and being lucky with your baby's | temperament. | irae wrote: | I won't assume you don't have kids, but what you said | does not align with my experience at all. | | I have two kids from different relationships, and as dad, | in both cases, I calmed down my kids better than the | mothers did. They both relied on me specially in the | worst baby crying situations. | | I don't think I am an exception in ability or anything, I | just cared to go learn a bit about babies, that's all. | Thought a couple of friends how to do it, they also | became very good at it. | neonate wrote: | So how do you do it? I want to be good at calming babies | too! | requieted555 wrote: | Seriously! From a male perspective, I want to have 2 | lamborghinis before age 35 but I'm stuck working this stupid | 9-5! I'm seriously upset when I'm out on the street and I see | hardly any cars, I really feel like it's my duty to put 2 more | cars on the street. Plus it would make me so happy to have 2 | cute little lambos of my own resting in my garage. I've always | wanted some of my own. All to myself, hehe. Work sucks! | throw8932894 wrote: | > _When I mention it to someone that I want to take time off | for a couple years_ | | > _actual equality where we acknowledge that women have | different needs and desires_ | | I find your view sexist and disturbing. 99% men would love to | take couple of years off with kids as well. But face even more | obstacles! | dang wrote: | Please don't take this thread into gender flamewar. It's | obviously already prone to it--that's no reason to push it | into the volcano. Actually it's a reason to consciously post | otherwise, as the guidelines say: | | " _Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not | less, as a topic gets more divisive._ " | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | jluxenberg wrote: | Try this: s/women/people/g | | If taking a break to focus on parenting was more acceptable, | anyone (man/woman/nonbinary) who wanted to do this would | benefit. | | Many careers are built around this idea that you spend 5-10 | years, with no breaks, in your late 20s and 30s working on | something. What if taking a substantial chunk of time off was | more common (for anyone)? | jbay808 wrote: | That would be awesome. | | Unfortunately, young people also don't have money. That's | the time period when many people feel a lot of pressure to | accumulate savings -- often, that might specifically be so | that they can afford to raise a child in the future. | | Acceptance of multigenerational households, living with | grandparents, and raising kids there, would be an option | and allow people in their 20s to become parents before | their careers have taken off. But even for those who have | loving and supportive grandparents, that also can be a | major strain on a relationship. | cc_cccc wrote: | > Try this: s/women/people/g | | Wow I don't even know what to say haha. | throw8932894 wrote: | Try this: s/men/paypigs/g | dcow wrote: | > When I mention it to someone that I want to take time off for | a couple years to have children in silicon valley, they look at | me as if I'm an alien. As if wanting to be pregnant and not | working at the same time as being sleep deprived and wanting to | spend time with my own baby when they are at their youngest is | some strange outlandish fantasy. | | And this happens _way more_ than people lead on and for the | exact BS reasons you call out. As someone who dated in SF not | for the hookup but to try and find a life partner who wanted to | prioritize and raise a family, it was bleak. We almost seem | intent on reinforcing "career is king", not tearing it down. | zippergz wrote: | I have a lot of friends in SF. At least in the tech industry, | it seems that the main reason people live in SF despite the | significant downsides is for career options and pay. So I'd | guess that the SF dating pool is already strongly skewed to | people who choose career over all else. | fossuser wrote: | The bay area M/F ratio is extremely skewed and the dating | market is extremely competitive - (has way too many men). | | I would guess that in cities with high skew (in either | direction) this creates a disincentive to staying together | for one person in the relationship. | | I'd also guess the NIMBYs and extreme housing cost also | incentivize delaying things. | | If there was a lot of housing supply the financial risk of | having kids would be way lower. | andrepd wrote: | I don't want to sound like an extremist but this is what | happens when _everything_ in life is mercantilised. Money | becomes king. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | It's really housing and then money only as a prerequisite | to that. | | To start a family you need somewhere to live. When housing | costs are insane you need crazy money to afford it, so | everything becomes about money. | kungito wrote: | It's ridiculous how often people repeat this because they | want to live in expensive areas. You don't really have to | do that. | samr71 wrote: | I'm sure most of the people working in Tech in the Bay | Area could go get a job at some firm in Cincinnati, with | substantially lower COL. Of course, they would have a | substantially lower salary as well, probably low enough | to make the Bay Area the better option economically, even | including the high COL. | | Of course, that doesn't mean we can't lower the COL of | the Bay Area! Make Silicon Valley as dense as Tokyo, and | I assure you rents will fall. | sjwalter wrote: | See, you're looking purely in terms of financial | economics. | | But, just as there are other forms of wealth than | financial wealth, there are other forms of economics, | like social economics. | | Your decision to take the XX% improved pay in the higher | COL area surely will improve your balance sheet over a | decade. | | But what will your peers look like after that decade? | Will they be a bunch of 40yo millionaire single people | all secretly worried that they took a bad tradeoff? | | Will the dating pool be full of careerist greedy types? | Or family-focused types? | | I've lived all over the US, and can't recommend enough | making _actual sacrifices_ for family. As in, yes, less | 401k contribution this year, but I get a house proper for | raising children and a stay-at-home wife that is | extremely happily homeschooling our brood. | | So funny, too: Building intergenerational capital for | your family is now easier in low CoL areas, because the | sacrifices imposed upon children raised in high COL areas | are arguably much more damaging than them having smaller | college funds. | | (specifically: dual-income requirement means less | parental time, plus high COL areas have spent the past | decade making their schools less competitive in order to | eradicate, for one example, the horrid specter of white | supremacy from the math classroom, where it has loomed | large for generations, apparently, which makes the "but | the schools" argument basically irrelevant). | | Can't recommend enough: Move to the country, homeschool | your kids, spend as much time as possible with them. | | Finally, basically the very most common deathbed | confession is guilt regarding prioritizing work over | family. | | Do you _actually_ care about regret-minimization? Or do | you really truly care about buying baubles and ensuring | your children are just as entranced with the rat race as | you and all your peers are? If the latter, stay in SF! | kaitai wrote: | I've done the math with my Midwestern salary and I still | come out ahead in the Midwest on average. Yes, you're | looking at it all economically, disregarding culture, | quality of life, access to nature, family, etc, but even | economically, good schools are cheaper here, cultural | events are cheaper here, college is cheaper here, day | care is cheaper here. That's why a lot of people do move | away from the Bay when they've got kids to raise. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > It's ridiculous how often people repeat this because | they want to live in expensive areas. You don't really | have to do that. | | It's not a problem limited to "expensive areas" though it | is dramatically worse there as a result of zoning | restrictions on top of everything. | | It's a problem caused by near-zero interest rates | inflating housing prices everywhere. | ovi256 wrote: | When living in an expensive area, one doesn't have to | wonder if it's a desirable area. It's obvious it is, look | how expensive it is. We copy what others want, a lot, | unconsciously. | monoideism wrote: | It's partly that, but it's partly what the GP comment says: | the prevalent idea that true equality of the sexes is for | women to become exact copies of men. Since women and men | are _not_ exact copies, this causes problems. | kaitai wrote: | But no one is an exact copy of anybody. I am a woman who | never ever wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, and I'm not, | and that's great. I have a husband who did a 4-day week | to spend three days with his kid, and that's great. Does | that make him a woman or me a man? No, that's ridiculous. | Does me having a STEM career make me a man? No, also | ridiculous. This "equality means everyone is the same" | thing is ridiculously straw-man-y. | | You know what leads to equity, rather than equality, and | actually addresses some of the structural concerns the GP | raises? Health care that allows for healthy pregnancies; | time off that allows for healthy pregnancies and babyhood | and recovery; and time off for all caretakers, whatever | their gender may be. My husband used FMLA to care for his | kid and now will use it to care for his parents. Give | people support and they will do what is best for their | families. All this worry about who is an exact copy of | who is in general a desire to start an ideological fight | in order to avoid taking any substantive action that will | help anyone. | throwaway6734 wrote: | Imo it's because there's less social resistance for women | to take on the roles of men. | | Until men that take on the former roles of women are | viewed equivalently in the dating market, it's going to | be a much harder slog | JPKab wrote: | Women across all income demographics desire men who make | as much or more than them. It's a fundamental preference | that OKCupid identified a long time ago. | | As a man, I don't fault this. The risk to a man of | reproducing with a woman who isn't great at making money | isn't as high, at a fundamental level, as it is for | women. A man isn't incapacitated in any way by the act of | reproducing. Nor is he prevented or blocked out of | reproducing with others, at an evolutionary level. A | woman is at great risk for mating with a man who isn't a | good provider. If he abandons her, she's stuck. This was | the reality for our ancestors, and those preferences are | baked into our genes. The opportunity cost of mating with | a loser was horrific for women. | | In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's | not. It exists across every culture on the planet, not | unlike the biological attraction men have to women who | display physical features that are indicative of high | fertility. | | Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or | morality. | spenczar5 wrote: | > In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's | not. It exists across every culture on the planet | | Could you provide a cite for this? It's an extraordinary | claim. It doesn't match with my understanding of some | historical cultures. | jxramos wrote: | > Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or | morality. | | I still try to meditate on the evolutionary advances for | sexual vs asexual reproduction to begin with. There's got | to be a huge advantage of the separation of the sexes | that is hard to fathom just because it's everywhere. Is | it a springboard of genetic diversity that optimizes in | ways we can't imagine otherwise? The 'compared to what' | is always something I wanted to contemplate. Like why did | organisms split into near copies of each other with male | and female? Why had one developed that carried the womb | and the other not? Was it just simple reproductive | concurrency? The separation being the better evolutionary | choice is so mysterious to me. | barrkel wrote: | If you have advantageous mutations in two parallel family | trees, sexual reproduction permits them to join into a | single tree while asexual (splitting) doesn't. There's a | similar effect for eliminating harmful mutations that | coincide with beneficial mutations. | | It's more complex in practice for bacteria - there can be | DNA transmitted horizontally - but bacteria usually win | out by sheer numbers. | [deleted] | in_cahoots wrote: | This is a common misconception. Equality means that both | sexes have options. It means offering (but not forcing) | men to take paternity leave, so that the family can bond | as a unit. It means offering flexible work options for | everyone. I've not met many women who want to work the | stereotypical 60+ hour weeks with a stay-at-home partner | that comes with being 'successful'. We want to raise | families and have careers on our terms. But the modern | workplace and economy isn't set up that way, in the US at | least. | tomcam wrote: | Big capitalist here. I agree completely. The reason I'm a | millionaire instead of a billionaire is that my first | priority was always to have a stable family and marriage. I | noticed all the billionaires seemed to go through a few | wives before settling down. Didn't like what that did to | the children, or what I imagined it might have done. This | kept me out of SV (and in much more, at the time, stable | and family oriented Microsoft country). | asoneth wrote: | Of more than a dozen friends who moved to Silicon Valley for | work/education, all but one left California around the time | they started their families. The impression I get is that | they're happy they had a chance to work there for a decade or | so and now they're happy to live somewhere else. Silicon | Valley sounds like a great place to do many things and it's | OK if having a family is not one of those things. I'm not | saying it's not possible -- one of my friends is making a go | of it. But it does sound like having a family there is | playing on Hard Mode. | | Contrast that to NYC where most of the folks I know who | started families there still work in the city, though some | did move a little further out into the suburbs. | JPKab wrote: | As a father who had his first child at 23 years of age, the | corporate/SV world is just AWFUL to women who don't want to | have to rely on IVF to have kids. And often the worst | perpetrators of said awfulness are other women who themselves | are delaying having kids. They have sacrificed, and really | don't like the women who they view as "not making the same | sacrifice". | | It's all around just awful to pit human biology against | corporate norms. | | And the parent commenter you responded to above really hit | the nail on the head with the things women's rights activists | have prioritized. Because activists are primarily based out | of universities and urban centers, they are really pre- | occupied with the wants/needs of 20 something women, and | could give two shits about things outside of landing that | sweet job at Google. | | The effect on our society is insane. It's basically | incredibly common now to encounter a stereotype: | | The couple in their 40s with twins, often born premature, a | consequence of IVF technology leading to incredibly high | rates of multiple births. | | My brother and I are identical twins, born before IVF was | remotely affordable. Twins used to be rare. Now they are | everywhere, and fit a certain demographic. It's absolutely | twisted and toxic that workplace norms and cutthroat | competition in said workplace have been allowed to remain | static, and demanded that humans delay reproduction. | | What a testament to how absolutely corrupt the feminist | movement is that it looked at the Don Draper character in Mad | Men, and concluded that their mission should be to create | female Don Drapers, instead of challenging and upending | whether ANYONE would want to be Don Draper. | | Edit: Dang and other commenters correctly pointed out that I | violated some HN norms in here and also my wording was poor | and undermined my point. I'm leaving the above unedited for | others to learn from my stupidity, and will clarify here: | | I have zero problem with people having kids later in life. I | only have a problem with people being FORCED to have kids | later in life when they otherwise wouldn't have, due to | inflexible and arbitrary corporate norms which were | established for male only workplaces. (That forced decision | was what I viewed as toxic) I'm a full advocate of women's | rights as well, and my frustrations with feminism expressed | above were intended to express my view that it didn't go far | enough, and "settled", leaving women in a perpetually unfair | position compared to men. | jacobolus wrote: | Your comment would be a lot more effective if it didn't | suggest that women's rights activists only care about | landing jobs at Google and are "absolutely corrupt". The | sentences linking identical twins to "twisted and toxic" | are also weird. | | There are some kernels of insight there, but this is not a | remotely accurate characterization of any of the women's | rights activists I have ever met, and it largely comes | across to me as paternalistic victim-blaming. | | 20-something feminist activists have limited power and | influence, and are not responsible for toxic workplace | culture in industries dominated by middle-aged men. | JPKab wrote: | I'm a twin. How you read that as me calling twins twisted | and toxic is rather confusing to me. It was obvious that | I was referring to the system that forces these delays in | reproduction. | jacobolus wrote: | It comes across as <<I am a twin and it's horrible that | other kids are forced to be twins.>> | | And <<I had my kid at age 23, and it is 'twisted and | toxic' that other parents delay having children until | their mid 30s. They should do what I did.>> | | Neither of which is likely to be your intention, which is | why I would recommend rephrasing. | dang wrote: | I appreciate your posting about your personal experience | but your comment also crosses into an ideological flamewar | rant and we don't want those here. Please stick to the | former and edit out the latter in the future. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | JPKab wrote: | Will do, and yes, you are correct. Shouldn't have gone | into that territory. | dang wrote: | Appreciated! | earthboundkid wrote: | YES! I have been saying this for years, but my fellow PMCs look | at me like I have three heads or I'm saying we should all live | in a shoe with more kids than we know what do. | | Human beings have limited fertility. It sucks, but it's part of | life. | | Professional life is designed around the idea that you are a | male with a female partner who will bear and raise your | children while you are attaining your professional credentials | and leaving them to their own devices. That is no longer a | valid design because we now want female professionals and male | involvement in child rearing. Therefore, the system must be | changed. | | But if you say that every PhD program, medical school, start | up, etc. should be designed so that it's NBD to take a year off | for having a kid, you're crazy, how would that even work, | anyway, have you heard about egg freezing?? | tomcam wrote: | Thanks. This is something dudes can't write about. My wife & I | simply decided decades ago that one of us would always not | work. We lived cheaply so we could accomplish that goal, but we | wanted a good family life. | | I would have been happy to be a househusband because she's | about 50 times the programmer I am, but she doesn't love | business and I do. We ended up doing great, but we had to start | out assuming that a 2-career life would simply be too much | stress in the high tech world. Great thing is it forced me to | make creative choices, but one thing that got us both | hoodwinked was this notion that a woman is as fertile at 35 as | she is at 21. Um... no. So we had two severely handicapped | kids. It would have been nice if the popular press had been a | little more honest about the biology--but of course I should | have educated myself better. | coryfklein wrote: | Why can't men write about it? | krrrh wrote: | Parts of what she wrote are similar to parts of what James | Damore wrote, and he was fired for it. | jimmygrapes wrote: | For the same reasons it needs to be written about. | vbtemp wrote: | > It would have been nice if the popular press had been a | little more honest about the biology | | You are not alone with this sentiment. | | Some years ago, in my 20s/early 30s-something friend groups, | any time the topic of declining female fertility with age | came up, it was basically attacked as fake news and a | conspiracy by older, conservative family members to get them | to breed. | | Moreover, sex education in school was 110% about all the | wonderful ways you can avoid getting pregnant. | | As I reflect back on it, no one calmly, but firmly gave the | message that female fertility (in particular) is neither a | given nor to be taken for granted, and that sooner than you | expect it drops to zero. Beyond that point, it can only be | extended by extremely expensive, painful medical procedures, | and even then there is no guarantee. | | ---- | | Edit: Another thing that comes to mind is that women have it | really tough, in a lot of ways, and this one feels the most | relevant. | | I think for women, people close to you and people who you | don't even know seem to take particular interest in the | choices you make with your body: How you dress, how you do | your makeup, who you sleep with, who you date, what you do | for work, etc etc etc. Infinitely more so than with men. I | think with all that going on, for young women, discussions of | female fertility just feel like yet another way people are | sticking their noses in her business while telling her whats | best and sapping her autonomy. And I think that's why to lots | of friends groups with lots of 20-something women this all | feels like fake news and sinister. | mycologos wrote: | > one thing that got us both hoodwinked was this notion that | a woman is as fertile at 35 as she is at 21. Um... no. So we | had two severely handicapped kids. | | (Preamble: not trying to argue anything about parent | comment's experience, just wanted to find data about this.) | | Some data on the rate of Down syndrome per 10,000 births vs. | maternal age appears on p10 of this paper [1]. The rate is a | stable 6-7 per 10,000 for the mothers in their 20s, about 50% | higher for mothers age 30-35, and then jumps to 25-30 per | 10,000 for mothers age 35-40 (4x the 20s rate), and something | like 100 per 10,000 for mothers age 40+ (>10x the 20s rate). | | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636004/pdf/ | nih... | AlgorithmicTime wrote: | Society has never been more gynocentric than it is now. It's | frankly unhealthy how gynocentric things are. | xiphias2 wrote: | > I wish the world wasn't so male centric, that feminists | actually cared about finding structural solutions instead of | forcing women to become copies of men to achieve gender parity | | What is happening is destroying both men and women in their | roles: sure, men can have their great enjoyment at the male and | performance centric workplace, but providing for a family is | also part of being a man, and it's being ignored. Sexual life | of most men is in a strong decline. | | Sadly man hating and women hating increased together (according | to Google trends), and more and more relationships are just | transactional. | michaelbrave wrote: | Only thing I can right now is pay attention to things like this | in the hopes that when/if I can finally get a company off the | ground that I can help to implement things like this, and | hope/encourage it to pave the way for things the way that | Ford's early factories paved the way for the weekend. | | I think we can make the world better, it's within our reach if | only a few courageous executives would take that initial hit in | immediate productivity in the interest of long term | sustainability. | ansible wrote: | The only solutions to all this I can think of are considered | hopelessly "radical" and "socialist". | | One thing that would help is having a Universal Basic Income, | with Universal Healthcare. This would allow people to work on | startups at their own pace, instead of desperately needing to | become successful in a relatively short time-frame in order to | create some stability. | hksh wrote: | I agree with much of what you say except that "women have | different needs". I would say each person has different needs | and to divide into the male/female binary is a fairly | restrictive definition of gender as I have come to understand | it. | | My wife and I have twins a little less than 2 years old, we are | both ~35, but we live in rural-ish NH not SV. She has taken the | last 2+ years off for the pregnancy and to function as primary | caregiver while I continue to work. While I don't feel a need | to work (perhaps a "need to project" would be closer) I do feel | a need to provide for my kids while being with them as much as | possible. As such I have chosen a low-stress, 9-5 SWE role | optimizing for family time over career advancement. At least | for the foreseeable future. | | From what we can tell she seems to be the only woman from her | MBA class that has taken so much time off from career to have | children. I don't want to speak for my wife but my impression | is that she feels torn by desires to have a high-power career | and to spend all the time with the kids (though pandemic | parenting in NE with no third spaces available means that some | days it would be an easy choice). Maybe that is society having | an outsize impact on her internal valuation of family rearing, | but I am not sure. | | The point I am making is that kind of gender bifurcation | doesn't fit the mold that I (a cis-gendered, white man) fit so | I find it less plausible that a less-represented person would | match it either as my "group" [more accurate term requested] | has largely set the social norms. | | I acknowledge I could be an outlier. | centimeter wrote: | "Women have different needs" is both extremely accurate and | extremely predictive. Taking issue with the statement because | it's not perfectly correct 100% of the time is, at best, | exceedingly pedantic. | vxNsr wrote: | > _The point I am making is that kind of gender bifurcation | doesn 't fit the mold that I (a cis-gendered, white man) fit | so I find it less plausible that a less-represented person | would match it either as my "group" [more accurate term | requested] has largely set the social norms._ | | I don't understand this conclusion at all. You just described | a fairly standard situation, and then said trying to apply | historical understandings of gender don't work... and yet | they fit perfectly within the story you provided. | | To me the issue has always been allowing other to define | success for you. | | If you find success is being a high powered executive who | spends 90hrs a week working, then do that, and don't let | someone else tell you that having kids is the only metric of | success. | | If your definition of success is raising children who are | normal humans and can function in society and make it a | better place, then do that; and don't let anyone tell you | that success can only be found in working and being valued at | ever higher dollar amounts. | | Your definition of success is exactly that: YOURS not anyone | else's and you shouldn't take anyone else's definition and | try to apply it to yourself. | | I think most of society's current problems stem from everyone | using some amorphous societal understanding of success that | no one has defined, but thinks everyone else knows. You be | your best as you understand that to be. That's the only path | to happiness. Trying to conform to some gender philosopher's | definition is a rabbit hole that leads no where good. | throwawayboise wrote: | You have describe a situation where you and your wife decided | on priorities in your life and acted accordingly. You both | decided that personal career goals were secondary to raising | your kids. It's a mystery to me why this is not seen as | normal. Everything involves trade-offs. It's not possible to | be present, involved parents and spend 60-80 hours a week on | a career. Choose one or the other, and don't complain about | how unfair it is. | onetimeusename wrote: | > "equitable to mothers" | | > "actual equality where we acknowledge that women have | different needs and desires". | | I can't see any other meaning besides equality of outcomes | split across employees by fertility lines regardless of inputs. | I think this is unfair. What do you tell someone who did not | take X amount of time off when their outcome is equated with | someone who did? | | Increasing paternity leave for all people doesn't help | compensate those who do not have children or don't have this | issue. Likewise for subsidizing fertility treatments. | retrac wrote: | It's no less fair than me having to pay school taxes when I | have no children. Healthy families and adequate children so | the population pyramid doesn't implode (more of an issue in | other developed countries than North America) is a pressing | issue that affects everyone in those societies. We should pay | our part of it. | babesh wrote: | My town exempts people over 55 from some school parcel | taxes. That is because there needs to e a supermajority to | pass bonds and exempting people who don't have school age | children makes them much easier to pass. There is a balance | that needs to be reached here. If you take this to the | extreme, I could have no children and work while my | neighbor has 7 children and chooses not to work. | onetimeusename wrote: | Is that the same issue? Public schools are a public good | but compensation/equity/advancement is a private one with | private benefits. This isn't an issue of preventing | financial collapse but as OP says a matter of "career | prospects". The justification for that reason as a public | good seems a lot less obvious to me than for public | education. | Consultant32452 wrote: | I don't think these changes are likely because, in my opinion, | there is a silent anti-natal movement in Western culture. We | have serious issues of an aging population, not enough kids | being born to fund social security, etc. and all of our | solutions look like bringing people in from other countries | with high fertility rates. None of the ideas being tossed | around seem to have anything to do with facilitating our own | families. There's lots of different sub-sects of the anti-natal | movement ranging from the environmental to racial. I have a | friend who confided in me she was afraid to have a child | because she didn't want to pass on whiteness. | | I truly hope you are able to find a partner and employer who | supports you in your life decisions. | frongpik wrote: | "pass on whiteness"? Never heard this phrase before. | kaitai wrote: | I agree and disagree. During my PhD, I had several women | friends have kids. It was a great time to have kids other than | the poverty thing, if you had a supportive advisor. But what | was not great was the lack of structure around it, by which I | mean clear and equitable maternity leave policies for people in | this sort-of-employee, sort-of-student position which many PhD | students in STEM inhabit. But I gotta say I don't see non- | feminists advocating for maternity leave for grad students, so | part of your post puzzles me. | | I was breast-feeding while a professor and needed to pump at | work. The nearest lactation space was in a different building, | which was somewhat inconvenient, and I had a sometimes-shared | office during the day so that wasn't perfect. But it worked out | -- mostly because a bunch of, uh, I guess feminists had | advocated for lactation spaces to be officially made available | across campus (they did a great job, taking a very data-driven | approach wrt geography and student/staff density). Before those | spaces were available, I know a woman who pumped in a dirty | janitorial closet. One day the janitor walked in on her | accidentally and everyone was quite embarrassed. But there were | no other places available; even the bathrooms didn't have | electrical outlets close enough to space to sit to pump. | | Heartily agree that destigmatizing gaps and breaks would be | great, and there are lots of people working to do that. Maybe | it's different where you live compared to where I live. I guess | I live in a low-cost-of-living part of the Midwest where we | aren't so high-stress about everything. Don't know what it | would take to change SV. | | For me, I sure as heck outsourced my baby to a nanny 15 hours a | week after she was 3 months old. Do you know how nice it is to | shower alone and have conversations with adults? Also, it was | wonderful for my kid to get some love from someone else; I | don't why she should be restricted to only two adult contacts | for 16 months of her life. I was very lucky that I was able to | teach evening classes and my husband took FMLA one day a week | for the first year, so that we both had time to devote to the | careers we love as well as the kid we love. I fully support the | stay at home moms I know, and I am also thrilled that I did not | do that, thanks. | | But my message to you is don't be scared of your career | prospects w/children. Seriously, don't worry about it. F*&^ | anyone who says having kids will derail your career. Maybe they | will, maybe they won't. Maybe a TBI you sustain during a | competitive road biking event or your weekend at Tahoe will | derail your career instead. And the higher-paid you are before | you have kids, the easier it will be to advance afterward. Life | is long. Babyhood and toddlerhood is short. You'll be fine. | conradev wrote: | Perhaps the alien look you are getting is because you are in a | financial situation where you can afford to take 2-4 years off | of work while also being able to afford to live in the Bay | Area. I don't think it's a fair assumption that every sleep- | deprived working new parent wants to be working. | hinkley wrote: | I don't want to blame this on 'toxic masculinity', but I think | there are a lot of men who would make allies for this sort of | work if they would stop for a moment and think about what's | good for them instead of toeing the party line. | | I am deeply convinced that I would be as productive at 32 hours | a week as I am at 40, +-5%. And the +5% in particular interests | me, because it would say a lot about how we are mishandling | creative roles. 32 hours a week not only opens up more | diversity in hiring, it also shifts the balance in co- | parenting. Yes, I can take Billie to his eye appointment/drop | him off at school/buy groceries for dinner on the way home. | xenihn wrote: | It's not clear what you're asking for exactly, but the solution | is obvious: give whatever it is that you want to provide to | EVERYONE, regardless of their gender, and whether or not they | actually have children. Special treatment for everyone. | gnicholas wrote: | This is a nice sentiment, but doing so would have unintended | consequences. | | For example, in most top universities, they give roughly the | same leave to new fathers as new mothers. New mothers use | this time to care for their baby, but many new fathers use | this time as an extended sabbatical/research leave. Their | wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work | on their next book. | | Then when it comes time for tenure review, the men who did | this have accomplished more than they would have if they | hadn't had kids (and more than some faculty who are mothers, | who spent their leave with their baby). | | So when everyone gets the same treatment, that doesn't | necessarily reduce or eliminate disparities -- and in some | cases it can exacerbate them. | triceratops wrote: | > many new fathers use this time as an extended | sabbatical/research leave. | | How do they even focus with a crying baby in the next room? | And how do their marriages survive such an abdication of | responsiblity? | gnicholas wrote: | They go into their office at the university, so noise is | no problem. | | As for their marriages, it's not necessarily an | inappropriate division of labor; one partners is earning | money and the other is caring for a child. The potential | unfairness is that it tends to result in men getting more | work done, and appearing to be either more productive or | more intelligent than women whom they work with. | x3iv130f wrote: | 2nd step would be a cultural change that would make it OK | for men to do childrearing. | | Let young boys play with dolls. Celebrate fathers who | parent young kids in movies and TV shows. | onetimeusename wrote: | Similar where I work. A male colleague has taken a couple | paternity leaves in the last few years and he said he just | spent the time working on side projects and watching TV. | | He did spend some time caring for his new children but if | his case is representative then, for a male, having a child | is like getting extra paid time off which is not fair to | people who may not use paternity leave. | as300 wrote: | I don't think the goal should be to eliminate disparities. | I think it should be eliminate obstacles. | | If the husband and wife agree that they want to use their | combined paternity/maternity in a given way, who are you or | I to tell them that they can't? The wife could just as well | force the husband to take care of the child and work on her | own next book. Or the pair could stagger their leaves so | that they spend equal time taking care of the baby. | irae wrote: | > Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and | they work on their next book. | | I was under the impression people had kids to build a | family together, not to compete with their partners for | achievements. I don't think at all the situation you | described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge | step forward. | | You know what is better then a new father stressed at work, | absent from home, worried his career is not growing fast | enough? A new father excited about the future, doing | something that is quite easily interrupted to help with the | newborn and building a future for the family. | | I do agree giving everyone the same things would be the | best, but it is easier said than done. Easier for large | corporations to support larger universal parental leaven | than to for startups to do the same. | gnicholas wrote: | > _I was under the impression people had kids to build a | family together, not to compete with their partners for | achievements. I don 't think at all the situation you | described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge | step forward._ | | I wasn't indicating that the spouses were in any way | competing with each other. I was pointing out the | inequity that results among professors who are fathers | and their colleagues who are mothers. The seemingly | generous and 'equal' policy of giving the same leave to | mothers and fathers has the result of disadvantaging | professors who are mothers, on balance. | | (I should note that not all male professors spend their | leave in this way, but enough of them do it is a | problem.) | random5634 wrote: | Yeah, my mom always rebelled at the feminist push to have women | do men's work as the goal (without valuing work women already | did). Join the military, kill people etc. I'm 100% for that, | but it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids, | perhaps the most important thing for society and with | INCREDIBLE costs (if done badly) and benefits (if done well) to | everyone. | | What's even more interesting, upvalue work that is | traditionally female, and you may see more men drawn to it, | staying home, teaching etc. | | Instead, those can be thankless jobs from a money standpoint, | and only folks who sell their souls into a male centric | hellhole of work environments (PhD life is silly, medical | residencies are nuts etc) are rewarded and women are told to | lean in. | centimeter wrote: | > it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids | | Because she already collects a massive amount of utility | associated with raising her own children. The economics of | paying people to raise their own children doesn't make sense; | the externality allocations are completely wrong. I'm sure | you can imagine some of the perverse incentives that come | into play. | | A woman benefits from raising her own kids (with an | associated opportunity cost in employment availability), and | the father also benefits from her raising the kids (without | the same opportunity cost), so the rational economic strategy | is for the father to defray some of the opportunity costs to | the mother. This arrangement has existed for at least | thousands of years and is called "marriage". | seneca wrote: | > This arrangement has existed for at least thousands of | years and is called "marriage". | | Well said. | | The modern inclination to tear down tradition institution | and then replace them with increasingly more damaging and | convoluted schemes is an endless source of confusion to me. | It's almost if we've become so arrogant that we assume if | something has been done for generations that it must be | wrong, which seems like the exact wrong assumption to make. | frenchy wrote: | There's also a inclination (not specifically modern) to | mythologize traditional institutions. For example, the | notion of a medieval knight in full plate. | | The modern notion of traditional parenting is about 60 | years old. Before that, things were much less | straightforward, unless you were rich, because the | absense of modern machinery and whatnot meant that that | often both parents had to work. | seneca wrote: | > There's also a inclination (not specifically modern) to | mythologize traditional institutions. For example, the | notion of a medieval knight in full plate. | | Indeed, the proverbial rose colored glasses. I think this | is where a lot of conservatives get tripped up. | | Being willing to make improvements is necessary to avoid | stagnation, but it's equally important to remember change | is not necessarily improvement (and often isn't). | ramzyo wrote: | That's a pretty narrow interpretation of "marriage" and | doesn't track my experience at all. | centimeter wrote: | Obviously it's an oversimplification, but the point is | that marriage nicely handles (among other things) the | allocation of child-rearing externalities. | klipt wrote: | > it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids | | Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half | their husband's income. Outside a marriage, mothers get child | support. | | The fact it's not taxed as "pay" is a bonus for mothers, not | a downside! | | It's weird how the myth persists that mothers "not getting | paid" a taxable wage is some kind of negative. | ramzyo wrote: | > Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own | half their husband's income. | | That's some creative logic. Being a stay at home parent is | a full-time job. If the stay at home parent were being | paid, they'd...well...be paid. "Effective" payment isn't | helpful to a full time parent raising a child and losing | out on wages they would otherwise get at a job that the | economy values with a taxable wage. | klipt wrote: | So you want the husband to explicitly pay his wife a W2 | wage to raise their kids, which just means as a couple | they pay more taxes and have less money than before? | | I don't see the upside. | ramzyo wrote: | No, you're right that doesn't make sense, and I wouldn't | be for that. I think government should expand paid time | off for family leave, especially in the US. | bradleyjg wrote: | So if corporate attorney is taking time off to raise a | child society should value, and pay, more for that then | if a public defender is? | twoifbyseat wrote: | > "Effective" payment isn't helpful to a full time parent | raising a child | | ? Having room and board for yourself and your child is | nothing if not helpful. | ramzyo wrote: | Yes, I agree. I don't see how that ties to the original | argument in the thread, though. Presumably a full time | parent with a spouse who can provide for both parent and | child and who gave up a taxable wage to be a caregiver | already had room and board. The room and board comment | seems irrelevant to the argument given the context of the | preceding comments around forfeiting a taxable wage for | the full time job of parenthood. | drfuchs wrote: | Child support is intended to cover the expenses of the | child - food, clothing, education, medical, etc. It's not | meant to pay for the time spent by the custodial parent in | actually doing the parenting, nor any sort of "opportunity | cost" of not being otherwise engaged in a paying job. | | Translated to HN-world: "I'm going work on a FOSS project | full-time!" World: "Great; we'll pay for your server! You | won't lose a dime!" Me: "Uh, what about the income from the | job I gave up?" | klipt wrote: | You can always choose to work and send the child to | daycare. | | Providing your own daycare instead of working is a | lifestyle choice, why does the opportunity cost of that | choice have to be shouldered by someone else? | drfuchs wrote: | You said "[custodial parents] do get paid ... child | support" and I was simply pointing out that this isn't | "pay" to said parent in the sense of "compensation for | services rendered". | csa wrote: | > In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. | | ... and half of asset appreciation, and in some cases (it | varies) half of pension. | | I will also add that it's not just mothers. It's any | spouse. I've seen successful women come out on the raw end | of this deal during divorce. | | I mention this not as a grievance, rather just an | observation that people who are married, both male and | female, are sometimes surprised at asset allocation during | a divorce with regards to "passive" investments and | business ownership (e.g, a self-owned business that has | grown). | i_haz_rabies wrote: | That's a weird contortion of logic. Your point is still | that raising children isn't an economically valuable | activity, unless you also think that men should be paid | somewhere around 2x if they are supporting a stay-at-home | mom... | klipt wrote: | The existence of daycares is proof that people are | willing to pay for raising children. | | What you're hitting on is that staying home to raise 1-2 | kids is economically _inefficient_ compared to working | and sending the kids to a daycare, because the daycare | can benefit from efficiencies of scale. | young_unixer wrote: | > it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids | | Are you suggesting that the father should pay the mother a | salary for raising the kids? (Or same thing with the sexes | reversed if it's the father raising the kid) | | Isn't that just a more formal arrangement of a stay-at-home | mother/father? The main difference would be: more financial | independence to the stay-at-home party, which is good in my | book, but I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting. | jedberg wrote: | I believe the proposal is that the government should pay | stay at home parents to remain that way, because it is a | net benefit to society. | bradleyjg wrote: | That proposal runs into issues. In particular, the income | replacement flavor implicitly suggests that the positive | externality of a stay at home parent is exactly equal to | the market rate pay in a wholly unrelated profession. | That seems very unlikely to be true. | jedberg wrote: | Presumably it would be a fixed amount for everyone, and | not based on the job you've left. | bradleyjg wrote: | In that case I'm tentatively for it. But I don't think it | will be useful in the kinds of situations being discussed | in the blog post and comments. | klipt wrote: | Isn't it economically more efficient to have kids go to | daycares (which benefit from economies of scale) and have | both parents work and pay taxes? | | Of course some people prefer to raise their kids | themselves, but that seems more like an expensive | lifestyle choice than a necessity. | jedberg wrote: | There are lots of studies showing that being raised by | your own parents is far more beneficial than a day care. | But as you point out, that's a privilege reserved for the | wealthy. | | Paying people to be stay at home parents would make it a | viable choice for a lot more people. It would also help | reverse the trend of the fertility rate dropping below | 2.1 | frenchy wrote: | > Join the military, kill people etc | | I don't think we should push women into these job, but I | don't think we should push men into those jobs either. | | > it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids | | Actually, my kid's day-care provider does exactly this! In a | few years, he'll have teachers doing the same. | | Valuing work is complicated. Personally, I'd be happy to be a | stay-at-home parent if finances made that easy, even if | seemed a little thankless. It's not like I feel that the | webshit I build all day long is really valuable. | | If someone feels undervalued as a stay-at-home parent, it's | probably because they feel stuck in that job, either because | of lack of education, lack of available child care, or | otherwise lack of jobs. | seneca wrote: | > it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids | | Why would women get paid to raise their own kids? You suggest | it's because when done well, it has incredible value to | society. What is that value to society? It's having | functional, productive members. Women already reap the | benefits of that by sharing society with other peoples' well | raised children. | | What I mean to say is that it's a web of mutual benefit. The | gap is actually in all the people who don't have children, | who are essentially free riders in this scheme, but that is | offset by the fact that they pay taxes for things like | schools, which they don't themselves consume, and lack of tax | breaks that parents receive. | petr25102018 wrote: | Also, the world is already overpopulated as it is in my | opinion. So not having a kid can be or will be seen as a | benefit to society... | sangnoir wrote: | The world is not overpopulated - it's that just some | (large) corners of it are seemingly incapable of living | sustainably (outsized consumption that goes with outsized | waste and pollution) | Digory wrote: | Every human being can value traditional female work (or, more | broadly, human obligations to each other) more than money. | | But we seem to want to be _paid._ It 's interesting that | socializing the payments seems to strike people as more | freeing than just social obligation. | | This seems like the kind of thinking that eventually requires | payments to give up the thrill of killing each other. | ncallaway wrote: | > But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that | socializing the payments seems to strike people as more | freeing than just social obligation. | | It's not that we _want_ to be paid. It's that we _need_ to | be paid, because in order to raise a child you need a | stable source of critical things for many years: | | - food & water | | - shelter (and heat) | | - clothing | | - waste disposal | | If I wanted to take several years entirely away from work | to raise a child, I would still have to have those things. | How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid? | | It's not about valuing _being paid_, it's about valuing the | things that are necessary to raise a child. | | You tell me how to acquire those things without being paid, | and then we can analyze while people value being paid more | than the social obligations. | sokoloff wrote: | > How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid? | | From savings or by having another family member work? | Combinations of that worked for a very long time in human | history. | nightowl_games wrote: | The down stream effects of our system could be that the | successful, educated, intelligent women and men dont have | children, and the more aggressive, more risk taking, less | educated among us have many children. | | This has the potential to massively harm our society in the long | term. | | We need to ascribe virtue to having children. We need to ascribe | an extremely high amount of virtue to being a good parent. | ArlenBales wrote: | That's basically the opening premise of Idiocracy. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA | jimbokun wrote: | I think it's pretty well documented this is already happening. | | People with less education have more children, on average, than | people with more education. | kbenson wrote: | I think maybe a wider perspective is needed on this topic. | Instead of the assumption that women should have more resources | for fertility as a founder of a company or trying to run/work at | a startup, let's examine why that assumption exists, which is men | in a similar position. | | Male founders also face hardships in rearing children when | working demanding jobs, but less so than women, partly because of | the luck of the genetic draw, and partly because as a culture we | are more lenient and have less expectations of fathers. The good | parent will have problems no matter their gender (but harder for | women obviously, who carry the child to term), but men can get | away with being more absent and less involved without as much | judgement. | | What if instead of taking at face value that people in these | positions should have resources allocated to make it easier to | raise children, we instead focus on their choices. They made a | choice to go into a high risk venture for the possible payout of | money and/or more control over their future. Worded in a more | harsh way, what's being asked is "Why aren't more resources and | attention focused on me while I attempt to play the lotto and | become a millionaire, or work my high paying job?" Perhaps the | answer to this should instead of providing additional support to | women and men in child rearing in an industry that pays famously | well and is getting less and less tethered to locale _by the day_ | , we instead decide to stigmatize fathers that focus more on | their career than their children? | | That's not to say I think we shouldn't as a society focus on | making child rearing easier, especially for those without as many | resources, but I'm not sure focusing on those that have chosen to | make the trade-off already to pursue a demanding and risky career | for the _chance_ at a large payout is what we should be doing. If | they benefit somewhat from societal changes, that 's great, but | I'm not really going to shed a tear over founders complaining how | hard it is with a pregnancy or rearing a small child to raising | funding for the next round, whether they be male or female. | They've made very specific life choices to put themselves into | that position, and I don't think it's out of bounds to say maybe | taking the hard and risky path doesn't always pay off. | | Note: This is probably way more harsh than I intend it to be, and | it's not exactly a correct representation of my feelings on this, | but I think it is a perspective worth considering. That is, to a | small degree I'm playing devil's advocate here. | dennis_jeeves wrote: | >Freeze your eggs/embryos. | | Trouble is that this doesn't work too well either, or so I have | read. | alfiedotwtf wrote: | > It might seem weird or somehow frivolous to freeze your eggs | | Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I'd see this as good time | management and life planning which should be celebrated and | encouraged. | throw8932894 wrote: | > _Startups take much longer than you'd think before they become | successful._ | | 90% of startups fail, they NEVER become successful. Gambling on | some theoretical future success is just bad advice. | | Also egg freezing and late age pregnancy is VERY expensive and | complicated. Author herself had three miscarriages. | | I would suggest something else: have children between 18-25, and | start self funded company while working at home. By early 30ies, | kids will be at school and company should generate some income. | neonate wrote: | The author is a female founder writing for female founders. | People can choose to be founders if they want to. The issue is, | what next? That's what the article is about. | | Your comment reminds me of those annoying answers on Stack | Overflow that say: why are you trying to do that? you shouldn't | do that! you should do what I think you should do instead! | Trasmatta wrote: | I don't know if there's an ideal age to have kids, but 18 has | always seemed way too young to me. I know a lot of people who | had kids at that age who, while they love their kids, deeply | regret not waiting. | | You also make it sound like starting a business from home in | your early 20's with kids is somehow more feasible than working | a stable job. That doesn't really make sense, especially when | you just talked about 90% of startups failing. | throw8932894 wrote: | Author waited and also regrets. My point is that having kids | early is much easier and cheaper, because it is at peak | physical health. | | Baby requires too much attention and prevents work in normal | 9-5 job with fixed schedule and meetings. But it leaves | enough "holes" in time table to work on something. | LeonardMenard wrote: | Having kids between 18-25 is very, very difficult, if you want | to raise them in a financially stable 2-parent home. | | I worked very, very hard to build both a financially stable | life and have a family "young." I had my first kid at 28, was | married at 24, and am the youngest mother I know in my | professional social circle. | | The only women I know who had kids 18-25 had accidental | pregnancies with flings or short-term nonviable relationships, | the fathers bailed, and the mother spent many years living with | her parents while struggling to have a much more basic career | than those discussed on this board. None of them had time, | money, social support, or educational resources as single | mothers to "start a self funded company while working at home." | | Ideally if a woman wants to have kids, she can make a plan to | have them with a committed partner at sometime around or just | before 30. If she also wants to be a start-up founder, frankly | she should look for a non-traditional relationship where her | husband takes on most of the childcare after those early baby | months, and hopefully he also has a stable but flexible | corporate or blue-collar job to give them a bit of financial | buffer. | bartvk wrote: | Yeah, the writer of the article first states "The focus that's | required at first will probably force you to cut back on almost | everything in your life". Then it's almost like she describes | how you can also cut back on fertility. Loving my kid so much, | I didn't feel great after reading the article. | kbenson wrote: | > I would suggest something else: have children between 18-25 | | Let's not undersell how hard it is to have kids when just | starting out in life, when you generally have less resources, | which may mean less stable housing. Couch surfing or staying | with good friends for a week or two because of financial | hardship problems is doable when you're single or a couple, | it's much harder to swing with children unless you have very | good friends in a more stable place in life than you or family. | Requiring there be family means mobility is limited, and | limited mobility means limited career choices. | | That's not to say it's not a good idea for some people given | their circumstances, just that it's not obviously a better or | easier path. | frEdmbx wrote: | Having children isn't easy. Having children near peak | fertility is relatively easier than later. If a woman has the | foresight to know that she would like to have a family first, | and then work on her career, she could focus on finding a | husband who can provide the resources necessary to both have | children between 18-25, and support starting a business | later. | | This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a reason. | If someone doesn't want to go this route, they obviously have | every right not to.. but they should understand the tradeoff. | kbenson wrote: | > This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a | reason. | | It also used to be much more common for women to wed older | and more established men. It also used to be less common | for women to go to college. There are lots of societal | norms that have changed to make early parenthood less | popular than it used to be. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | Now that we are subsidizing fertility procedures, will SV | companies also subsidize nannies because productivity would | depend on sleep and outsourcing it to night nannies would help | female employees tremendously. Why not? | | How much more can we extend this? Let's be creative here. | Ma8ee wrote: | Or get a husband that takes care of the kids. The woman will of | course have carry the children in her womb, which will be some | tough months. But after that the husband can do almost | everything. If she feels that it is important to feed the baby | breast milk the first months, excellent pumps can be bought. | | This is a much better option than waiting until it almost is to | late. | | (I'm not talking out of my ass: I'm currently a stay at home dad | so my wife can focus on her career. Soon our second kid is a year | and will start kindergarten, and I'll start working 75%). | johnzim wrote: | This is great advice. I was in a similar position till we moved | to the Bay Area, which flipped the financial calculus. | | Other than breast-feeding, Dads can do everything that's | required and pumping works out great for everyone. | tobib wrote: | > pumping works out great for everyone | | You might want to ask a few (other) women about that. My | partner very much dislikes pumping. Both the physical aspect | as well as the emotional/psychological side of it. But I get | what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment. | Ma8ee wrote: | Also important to remember is that breast milk isn't | essential. There are of course many studies that show that | breast milk is great in so many ways, but on the other | hand, a lot of perfectly healthy adults were fed formula, | so maybe it's nothing anyone should give up their career | for. | tobib wrote: | Maybe I just didn't find the studies but I wish we knew | more about the benefits of breastmilk and the act of | breastfeeding (e.g. social, hormonal) and the | benefits/downsides of formula. | | I have this subjective feeling about one clearly being | better than the other in so many ways but it's nothing | rooted in facts. All the information I can find on the | internet don't seem trustworthy mainly because it's so | difficult to control for the socio-economic realities | around who breastfeeds and who feeds formula. Plus I | suppose it's difficult to do a blind trial at least when | it comes to breastfeeding vs bottle feeding. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >pumping works out great for everyone. | | Pumping is an enormous pain in the ass compared to | breastfeeding. All the moms I know who had to pump wish they | never had to pump. | Ma8ee wrote: | And for some women breastfeeding is a pain (often | literally) and pumping at least works. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Yes, I should have acknowledged that is a problem for | many also. | tobib wrote: | I'm currently working in my home office while my partner is | looking after our newborn full time and I'm jealous as hell. I | genuinely with I could stay at home longer than just a couple | of weeks/a few months and be a full time stay at home parent. | Unfortunately it doesn't work for us financially but I wish it | did. | setpatchaddress wrote: | This is a fine thing that can work for some people and not for | others: it's really hard to live a decent life on a single | (tech!) income in Silicon Valley if you're not already wealthy, | and young people may not have enough saved up to take a year | off. | lainga wrote: | Do you think people would receive your advice the same way if | the sexes were reversed? | Ma8ee wrote: | The situation where the sexes are reversed is the norm. That | is what almost all successful career men do: they let the | wife take care of the kids. | damagednoob wrote: | No, but that doesn't mean the advice is bad. Two consenting | adults should be able to divide up family responsibilities | however they see fit. | [deleted] | [deleted] | scarmig wrote: | I'd love to be a stay at home dad: I enjoy taking care of and | spending time with children, and I like doing household labor. | It's not like I'd be bringing nothing financial to the | partnership, either: I'd be bringing substantial assets into | the partnership, such that my wife wouldn't need to worry about | my retirement or even day-to-day expenses. | | The reality, though, is that most women want someone ambitious | (in the very limited, traditional sense of ambition), and | aspiring to be a stay at home dad is considered at best neutral | and more often a negative or dealbreaker when it comes to | forming relationships. | | This is true even of (or perhaps especially of) career-focused | women, despite the fact that their male counterparts are more | than happy to date and marry less-ambitious women with the | intention of a division of labor conducive to family rearing. | k__ wrote: | In Germany you can get a few years paid leave for getting a | child. | | I met a few women who used their parenting time to found a | company. | lnsru wrote: | Paid leave is 12+2 months if both parents use it. And it's | capped at 1800EUR. Depending on location and business type it | is absolutely reasonable to start something with that | conditions. There are no paid years for sure. | k__ wrote: | Interesting, Wikipedia said something about up to 36 months | per parent and per child. | lnsru wrote: | 36 months per child for both parents. 12+2 months are paid | if both parents share the time. For one parent only 12 | months. I recently did this whole paperwork, but canceled | my parental leave since we found affordable property for | buying. Shouldn't be that bad with current pandemic home | office ruling at work. | [deleted] | jplr8922 wrote: | My two cent : we got the whole ''parental leave'' thing wrong | because we make business pay and the individual pay the costs. | Big firm might have plenty of ressources to deal with it and 'not | appear sexist', but a startup or small business will not. It | should be a government program to help both the individual and | his employer. | krrrh wrote: | In Canada it was introduced as part of the Employment Insurance | system. I think that's a good way to look at it and spread the | costs across the workforce. It doesn't replace your full wages | (I think it's 55%, though some employers top it up with private | insurance), but the parents basically get a year of wage | support to divide between the two of them. Your employer also | has to hire you back. | nyghtly wrote: | What a horribly dystopic conclusion. You can't bio-hack your way | out of the consequences of hustle culture. Every working adult | should have sufficient personal time to support their family (or | start one). The fertility industry is a symptom of a corrupt | culture in which childbearing is punished. | giantg2 wrote: | I'll upvote, but I disagree with the connotations that come | with using the word "punished". | sjtindell wrote: | Thank you for sharing. As I understand it is low risk to freeze | eggs. No offense meant, did you consider adoption at all? Is it | an option? | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | Is adoption possible in the U.S? I had a colleague in Europe | who wanted to do it (stable high-income, good careers, nice | couple all around) and found it to be impossible. I've always | heard it was not a thing in rich countries. | sjtindell wrote: | It is possible yes. The process is definitely grueling from | what I've heard (many interviews, lots of documents to | furnish, lots of luck) but it is doable. | u678u wrote: | In Europe its pretty normal to have one child. It seems only in | America people aspire to have 2, 3, even 4 kids. | requieted555 wrote: | kids = status = protection | dang wrote: | Please don't add nationalistic flamebait to this thread, which | is flammable enough already. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | jurassic wrote: | I feel like the moonshot or bust VC startup mindset is the | problem here. The startup fantasy is that you're going to take | investment to build a multi-billion dollar company. But most | people don't need anything close to a billion dollars to do | everything they want in life, so it's unfortunate that many | peoples' idea of entrepreneurship is tangled up in this unicorn | playbook. This version of entrepreneurship is just a status game | for young white men, and the rest of us should probably consider | other options. | | Most middle class people would be radically more secure and happy | with only a few million dollars over our current level of wealth. | It sounds like a tall order, but it's a pretty low bar in the | world of business. There's a huge range of financial outcomes | that would be amazing success for individuals that would be | miserable failures for a VC-funded company. Those are the sweet | spot, because they change your life without attracting VC-backed | competition. | | So I see the question as: What is the easiest and most | predictable way to reach my wealth target in the next 3-4 years | instead of the next 30-40 years? Trading time for money won't get | me there. The best answer I've come across is to create a simple | idea for subscription physical product or micro-SaaS, validate | the customer need, presell, then build/manufacture, and sell the | shit out of it. Emphasis on selling not building. | | People like to look down on the "lifestyle" business, but this | seems like the best option for most people because it can be a | vehicle to accumulate a life-changing amount of wealth (millions | not billions) without the expectation from VC gatekeepers that | you will be sacrificing every other part of your life at the | alter of the business. As long as you're not yolked to the | expectations of investors, you can scale your effort on the | business up or down as your life and ambition dictate. | neonate wrote: | The blog is about female founders specifically. What's wrong | with that? If you're implying they shouldn't be founders, then | what you're saying is patronizing, and if you're not, then it's | off topic. | jurassic wrote: | I am a female founder, and I think most people (not just | women) have better options than going down the VC path. | [deleted] | ummonk wrote: | You shouldn't plan on relying on frozen eggs. They have a | relatively high probability of not working. | https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/01/27/f... | Alex3917 wrote: | Your fertility drops exponentially after age 35, and the risks | for both the mother and child significantly increase. And since | it takes ~2 years to make a baby, ideally you should start having | kids no later than 35 - 2k, where k is the number of kids you | want. And you probably want at least one extra year in case | anything goes wrong, which it often does. | | IVF and egg freezing, while useful tools, don't really magically | change this formula in any meaningful way. | Teknoman117 wrote: | As a (male) who is definitely uninformed - does female fertility | begin to decrease far earlier than the biological capacity to | have a successful pregnancy (post conception)? | | As in, if a woman was to freeze some of her eggs in say, her 20's | and desire to use them for IVF in her late 30's, is it still safe | for her to have a child? | [deleted] | svachalek wrote: | As a couple who had a child in their 40s (naturally) I find a | lot of people overestimate the difficulty. Yes the odds of | success drop dramatically with age so it's best to start when | you can but even so, IIRC, the most likely outcome is no | problems at all even at age 40. | jedberg wrote: | In short, yes, kind of. There is a decrease in success the | older the mother is, but the age of the eggs plays a key role | in the success rate. 20 year old eggs have a higher chance of | success with IVF than 35 year old eggs. | bobthechef wrote: | Feminism did a lot to stigmatize motherhood. "Stay at home mom" | became a term of disparagement. You're basically a dumb loser and | a miserable failure if you aren't a careerist woman (which is | hilarious because such moms are typically much happier than those | forced to earn wages or slave away in some toxic corporate | environment). I think many more women would prefer to raise their | children (which, btw, is a full time job and much more important | than some job and for which jobs primarily exist in the first | place) instead of pushing them onto some stranger who is payed to | do their job for them and then go to work. And frankly, most jobs | aren't something people would miss. Feminism of this kind is and | always has been an upper middle phenomenon. There is little | consideration for low income earners. You think most women are | just dying to be wage earners? They do it because they have to. | Low income mothers have always been working women, out of | necessity, not some weird sense of ambition and needing to prove | something. It's the middle and upper class mothers who could | afford the privilege of staying at home. (Well, until now when | even the upper middle class needs two income earners just to buy | a house.) | | Before someone possessed by the Zeitgeist clicks that downvote | button, I will add that this isn't to say women should be banned | from anything. You want a career, that's your business. Also, | consider that besides raising children, there is plenty to do | around the community that's probably more rewarding than a full | blown career (even part time is stuff). However, I am saying that | the social and cultural pressure, the NECESSITY, to be a | careerist, and this means at the expense of your family which is | sort of an afterthought, should be ridiculed and abolished. Girls | should not be taught that their self-worth and happiness are to | be found in a career. No one should. In this case it's making | women miserable. Maybe as people begin to sacrifice some material | comforts for the sake of a healthy family life, the market will | begin to shift. After all, if you don't have that income rolling | in any more and you're not keeping up with the Jones' likes some | zombie, then the market will need to respond in turn. | | (Also, please, no IVF. IVF is gravely immoral, especially given | that you typically have to fertilize multiple eggs which are then | are discarded or remain frozen.) | ed25519FUUU wrote: | The problem is compounded when you think about the types of | people who are missing their fertility window. We're talking | about some of the smartest and most ambitious women in the world. | It's a huge loss of our country if we can't create an environment | that allows them to create families and offspring. What a shame. | asdf333 wrote: | thank you for writing about what must be a difficult topic to | discuss, for the benefit of others. | rantwasp wrote: | I empathize with how hard it is for a female founder in | particular and for a woman in general when it comes to mixing | children with a career. | | That said the advice to freeze your eggs (ie work now, live | later) rubs me the wrong way. I wish we could live in a society | where people would not have to work themselves to death and were | able to... you know... enjoy life | umanwizard wrote: | Our society doesn't force or even encourage people to be | startup founders -- they choose it for themselves. There are | plenty of examples of classes of people who have to work harder | than they should in an ideal society, but I'm not sure what | point you're making with this particular one. | beaconstudios wrote: | being a founder is glamourised. Being rich is glamourised. | What more encouragement do people need? Wealthy | businesspeople are basically the symbol of social success. | kapp_in_life wrote: | I think the overarching point they were making was about the | difficulty women have with balancing a career with having a | child(which is further exacerbated for women founders due to | the increased workloads founders face). | | I do agree though that choosing to be a founder then | complaining about a poor, usually self imposed, work life | balance is a bit silly. | tmpz22 wrote: | There is an imperative to be a high earner due to | skyrocketing housing, medical, and education costs in the | United States. At the same time popular media like Wolf of | Wall Street, The Social Network, and Shark Tank, show how | life affirming and beneficial it is to gain wealth. | | To many start-ups seem like a short cut - even if they are | laughably not. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | For highly skilled technical people and business leaders, we | already do live in that society. There are many companies that | will happily pay you entirely unreasonable amounts of money to | work a 9-5 job. However, you can opt in to lifestyles where you | work yourself to death in the hopes of getting even more | excessive riches and fame than you would get by living a more | relaxed lifestyle. | fastball wrote: | I don't want fame or riches. | | I just want to build something nobody else has built. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | You can do that as a hobby, or you can do it as a startup | but treat the startup as a 9-5. (Your leisurely pace of | work might hurt your chances of staying ahead of your | competitors, but that's only important if you want the | wealth and fame part.) | fastball wrote: | Hmm I don't think that's quite right. | | In order for me to _continue_ building something nobody | has built, I need it to be generating revenue. And in | order to generate revenue I need to stay ahead of the | competition, which probably requires _not_ treating it | like a 9-5. So yes I 'm pursuing money, but not to | achieve vast personal wealth, but rather to ensure my | (hopefully) novel business is long-term viable. | pantalaimon wrote: | if you build something nobody else had built, wouldn't | that mean there is no competition? | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | Ok, I guess for some founders keeping their business | viable at all requires a very large commitment. I think | that's going to depend on how saturated is the market | you're entering, and various other factors. I still | believe that most founders could work much less if they | were not in pursuit of vast wealth/fame. | munk-a wrote: | I disagree with this - I think it's very much a | reflection of the modern world being quite focused on | profits and revenue - you can build an exceedingly | successful thing that doesn't provide a clear revenue | stream. It won't come with the glamour that other options | may have but if you look at passion projects from things | like open source libraries all the way down to dwarf | fortress it's quite possible to make a living building a | thing - it just won't give you 200k+ in annual income. | | There is a place for artisanal projects in the modern | world - a lot of creative folks subsist greatly on | patreon as a source of income. | fastball wrote: | That's more of a crapshoot though. The vast majority of | open source projects _don 't_ generate enough donations | to sustain even a single developer. The vast majority of | indie games don't experience the success of Dwarf | Fortress. | | A clear revenue model from the beginning makes it much | more likely that you will be either A. long-term | sustainable or B. call it quits before too much time is | invested. | mathgladiator wrote: | I respect the honesty, and I am there with you. I think | inventing something new is exceptionally harder because the | burden of communication is exceptional. | | I have spent a decade within large scale infrastructure, so | I have climbed the shoulders of giants to see what can be. | Once you see what can be, then there is the burden to | communicate what you see. It's not easy, and you learn deep | respect for all the previous innovations because they | required exceptional communications. | | Here I am, an aging man, and I've invented my thing. It's a | programming language for board games that lets you build | durable compute. You don't have to worry about failures at | all. The machine can live forever! It's great, but I have | to communicate and prove its value. | | I intend to retire and tinker on it for a decade: | | http://www.adama-lang.org/docs/what-the-living-document | grillvogel wrote: | have a kid then | kgybcehbx wrote: | Well we used to have a society with a division of labor and | stable institution of marriage so that women didn't have to | work themselves to death through the child rearing years but we | decided as a society that in order for women to be truly free, | they need to be trapped in the same work to death life that men | have been in since prehistoric times, to the detriment of their | lives and the lives of our children. But it'll be OK because | the village can raise the children; just send them off to the | tax subsidized day care to be raised in a 1:20 adult: child | ratio (they'll be fiiiiiine) and then you can have your career | and your "motherhood" (no matter that the child trusts the | nanny more than you because you were always at work) too | sokoloff wrote: | "We" didn't decide as a society. Rather individual people | (and couples) in society decided that they'd prefer to have | additional income [and stimulation] by choosing to work | outside the home. Collectively, that dramatically increased | the labor supply as compared to 100 years ago as well as | increased the demand for goods and services. | | I don't want to have us go back to the old way where it was | looked down upon or judged for women to participate in | society as free and equal agents in deciding how they want to | spend their one precious life. "Men should work and women | should tend to the household and children" is way worse than | "Adults should be able to make free choices about their lives | [and accept the consequential outcomes resulting from those | choices, both beneficial and detrimental]" | defen wrote: | Counterpoint: let's say I hate the effect that car- | ownership has had on society - you can't just tell me "well | then you should just choose not to own a car". The problem | is that society itself has been reshaped around the | assumption that essentially everyone has a car. For the | vast majority of people in the vast majority of locations | in the USA, it's simply not viable to live without a car, | or ready access to one. | | That doesn't mean I should be able to reshape all of | society according to my whims, but it seems flippant to | dismiss the material circumstances that make single- | breadwinner families economically infeasible for most | American families by saying that people can just choose to | live that life if they want. | munk-a wrote: | I hate the effect that car-ownership has had on society | and I refuse to own a car personally. I advocate for | urban planning that reinforces walkable neighborhoods and | tighter parking restrictions and choose to live in a city | which isn't completely foot-friendly but is better than | most. Choosing to live car-free does impose restrictions | on my freedom of movement, but it only prevents me from | going to places I have no desire to go to. | | I'd also say it's absolutely fine to _try_ and reshape | all of society according to your whims - that 's sort of | what everyone is doing in a democracy constantly. Just | don't get upset if some folks object and it doesn't work. | sokoloff wrote: | What you say is true, but partly orthogonal. If not | owning a car is one of the most important things to you, | then as a friend, I would counsel you to arrange your | life to prioritize that. Live in NYC or Boston. Or | Amsterdam or Paris. In all of those places, car ownership | is a net negative and so you'll find a lot of life | arranged to assume you don't own a car and as a result, a | lot of like-minded people. | | If your frustration is that many _others_ choose to own a | car and prioritize their consumption differently, again | as a friend I would tell you in the most polite way I | could muster to make your choices based on your values | and let others make their choices based on their values. | You can _also_ try to reshape all of society or some | small corner of it, but first and foremost, I 'd advise | you to make pragmatic choices to improve your daily | existence. | defen wrote: | > arrange your life to prioritize that. Live in NYC or | Boston. Or Amsterdam or Paris. In all of those places, | car ownership is a net negative and so you'll find a lot | of life arranged to assume you don't own a car and as a | result, a lot of like-minded people. | | That was indeed my point - "just go live in NYC or | Boston" is not realistic for most people for a variety of | reasons. | sokoloff wrote: | What I internalize from that is that the life | optimization function coefficient on "live without a car" | is not high enough for that person to outweigh the | coefficients and input variables on other quality of life | factors. | | If "live without a car" was 1.0 and all other factors | were 0.0, they'd decide to go live in | NYC/Boston/someplace else that optimized that. Since they | don't, they have other factors that they are weighing | (probably implicitly) to conclude that they shouldn't do | that. | | No one can have everything they want. Most people can | have the one thing they want most in the world, if | they're willing to make enough other sacrifices to get | it. | yomly wrote: | But now I have to be twice as financially successful to | provide the equivalent level of support my parents did | while my wife opts to be a full time parent. | | We both made free choices, but the environment has now made | that considerably more expensive. | | Don't get me wrong, this isn't a value judgment but, sadly, | being a stay at home parent isn't economically "valuable" | and so the incentives have shifted over the years. | sokoloff wrote: | On the economic value point, my spouse elected to stay | home when our second was born as we calculated that with | their (well above median pay, PhD required) science job, | that with two in daycare or paid pre-school, we were just | breaking even on an after-tax monthly cash basis and so | they'd be working full-time and the only headway we'd be | making from their work and missing our kids' development | was maxing out another 401k account. | | For us, that was an absolutely economically valued choice | to stay home. Now that they're in school, freelance | science consulting adds to the household retirement | savings in a very significant way (when self-employed, | you can squirrel away about 92% of the gross income up to | mid-five figures), which by now has probably filled in | the gap from several years of no 401k contributions and | growth and provides them with the intellectual | stimulation and contribution in their field that is also | desired. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | I don't believe that is all down to the changing | demographics of the labor force. Another aspect is the | availability of land in desirable locales (i.e. close to | metro areas). There are more than twice as many people in | the U.S. now as there were "in the good old days" (by | which I'm referring to the 50s and early 60s). And houses | have gotten larger. And on top of that, people have been | generally expressing a preference toward urbanization, | with less than half as many people living in rural areas | today compared to the 50s. All these factors have had a | significant effect on housing prices, the dominant cost | most American families pay. | munk-a wrote: | The fact that you need to provide so much more value as a | worker isn't due to the fact that both parents tend to | work (at least not directly) it's due to the fact that | modern society has much more rent seeking than previous | generations had to deal with. Because most families have | more wealthy individuals can squeeze families more before | they reach the breaking point and have done so to the | point where the average family doesn't have as much spare | as it should given everyone's productivity. | | The inability to have one working parent support a family | comes down to wealth inequality like a lot of modern | ills. | jimbokun wrote: | > I wish we could live in a society where people would not have | to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... | enjoy life | | Compared to almost everyone else who ever lived, if you live in | a Western Democracy (and increasingly for many in some non- | Western countries), that time is now. | | People from past centuries, and people from many poor nations | around the world, would be baffled that people living with the | opportunities we have available to us complaining about not | being able to "enjoy life". | | Things certainly aren't perfect, but seize the opportunities | already being afforded to you for enjoyment. | mountainb wrote: | If you live anywhere with cheap cost of living you can have a | pretty chill lifestyle and raise kids. If you want to live in a | tournament zip code you have to live a tournament lifestyle. | The US is a gigantic country that is mostly empty. | vmception wrote: | > That said the advice to freeze your eggs (ie work now, live | later) rubs me the wrong way. | | That seems to be based on a lot of assumptions. I consider | working a fulfilling job to be living. Whereas raising children | seems to be the fulfilling... life role.. to you? I don't view | them as separate delineated things. | | I think freezing eggs should become cheaper, more viable, and | covered by insurance, and there are a couple ways to improve | the process. | | A lot of times I find dating 28-33 year old women to be | predictably _annoying_ because many stigmatize options like | freezing eggs while still rushing to check the boxes on various | rites of passage, as if freezing eggs is a form of defeat. | Whereas older women have just gotten over it, already done it, | or something else. And younger women haven 't gotten around to | "wondering where this is going". My experience, corroborated by | some other men. I wonder if that contributes to Leo's age | limit. I don't have experience dating men, so I wouldn't know | if they do something similar at certain age ranges. | dehrmann wrote: | > wish we could live in a society where people would not have | to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... | enjoy life | | While I do agree, this is where I draw a distinction between | "job" and "career." A job is something you do to make money. A | career is an end in itself. Balancing a career and parenthood | is incredibly hard because they're both large time commitments. | Despite what the 90's told women (though this applies equally | to men), you can't have it all, and you have to decide what's | important to you. | tobib wrote: | There are societies where a woman can have both, a career and | a family. And that usually comes with maternity leave, | parental leave, child benefits, child care, etc. | | I hope I don't misunderstand you but what you said sounded to | me like it's either or, and I don't think that has to be | true. | bengale wrote: | It's true. Telling people they can have everything does them | such a disservice, because it strips them of the knowledge | that these decisions exist. We all have to pick and choose | where we apply our energies based on what we value most, | pretending that isn't the case just means those decisions are | made for them. | munificent wrote: | I think the initial intent of feminism was that "have it all" | meant "here is a buffet of life paths and each individual is | free to pick _which_ ones they want in order to live a | meaningful life. " | | But somehow that's turned into, "we put _all_ of the life | paths on your plate and if you don 't eat them all, you're a | failure". We went from "you can" to "you must". | | Maybe there's something fundamental in the nature of esteem | and prestige that leads to this. We don't see to be good at | building cultures that understand there can be many entirely | disparate ways to live that are equally successful. | rantwasp wrote: | offtopic: Hey munificent! Great fan of your books. Keep up | the great work! | munificent wrote: | _waves and gets back to work_ | MajorBee wrote: | If I may add to your distinction between "job" and "career" | -- a career can be thought of what a person ultimately | decides their economic contribution to society over the | course of their life is going to be. While full-time | parenting is usually not counted as a career, raising the | next generation certainly seems like a very critical economic | contribution (among others). To this end, there are movements | to recognize this contribution by paying the stay-at-home | parent (usually the mother) some form of "salary" to not only | fully legitimize the role of parenthood in a society that | values contributions by money earned, but also to make them | more independent and therefore confident by not making them | fully financially dependent upon the earning spouse. | everdrive wrote: | > A job is something you do to make money. A career is an end | in itself. | | By that definition most of us don't have careers. | dheera wrote: | Potentially controversial thought here, but I'd like to bring | it up for discussion. | | I feel like the work ethic I see throughout the industry is | extremely toxic to society, and leads to some of this. In China | for example there's a so-called "996" work schedule (9am-9pm, 6 | days a week) which is basically expected of everyone in tech, | unfortunately, and it seems Silicon Valley is heading that | direction as well with all the off-hour meetings, weekend work, | and on-call requirements. Many SV companies also demand 72 | hours or more of work per week, in my adecnotal observations. | | What I'm often observing is: | | (a) such toxic work ethic is largely set _by male founders_ who | don 't care about other important things than work e.g. family | plans | | (b) others in the industry are forced to compete with those | ridiculous standards, including females, those with | disabilities, those already with family, those taking care of a | family member, etc. | | (c) this results in those groups being consequently | disrespected by investors because they can't match up to the | workaholic male founders who don't care about anything but | work. I've heard several investors talk negatively about | females behind their back because "they might want to have | kids". | | (d) this results in more workaholic male CEOs rising to the top | | (e) the cycle repeats | | Are my observations and inferences correct, or am I off? Open | question here. | mattgreenrocks wrote: | Don't play zero-sum games with people who are willing to give | up more than you. Are you precluding yourself from winning? | Absolutely. | | But what is the value of winning if you had to give up what | you defined as too much? | qiqing wrote: | A bit of cultural context on "996" even though most of my | cousins in China don't work in tech, the context is useful. | | The mandated retirement age is 60 over there so most of my | aunts and uncles who have grandkids are primary childcare | providers for my cousins. Due to the one child policy from a | generation ago, each baby today has 6 adult caretakers, 2 of | whom work full time (sometimes "996"), 4 of whom are retired | and take shifts on childcare, household tasks, or ordering | delivery / grocery shopping. Some of my cousins have opted | for a second child, which means 4 60-ish caretakers for 2 | kiddos. It's not too bad when there's good communication and | teamwork between the adults, even though several of my | cousins actually have never changed a diaper and I have no | idea how they'll manage when it's their turn to be a | grandparent in 20-30 years time. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | I'm not sure if you've got the details right, but it is | definitely true that if you are taking part in any elite | competition, you are probably going to be competing against | people who are working very hard. I don't think that this is | specific to male cofounders. Even in the counterfactual world | where all founders are women, some will work harder than | others, and if there is a perception that the harder workers | are more likely to succeed, there will be pressure on | everyone else to work harder as well. | dheera wrote: | > specific to male cofounders | | I guess what I was trying to say is, male founders have a | few biological choices that female founders don't, and I'm | suggesting that it should be considered unethical to set | industry work-hour standards to a level that only males can | achieve because males are able to de-prioritize biology. | | An article about one of the most widely acclaimed male | founders today: | | "As an Apple employee in the early 1990s, he almost walked | out of the delivery room when the impending birth of his | first child threatened to disrupt a presentation he was | scheduled to give. As president of Google China from 2005 | to 2009, he had a special table installed on his bed so | that he could sit directly up from sleep and immediately | begin responding to emails, without having to waste time | standing up or reaching for a laptop." | | I'm hypothesizing that behavior like this, at different | scales, is quickly becoming both romanticized and | _expected_ of founders, and that is marginalizing all | groups except single males. | | https://qz.com/work/1488217/a-former-symbol-of-silicon- | valle... | lainga wrote: | What aspects of male biology are they de-prioritizing? | The need to participate in child-rearing? | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | Men can have (with more difficulty, it's true) children | for much later in their lives relative to a woman of the | same age. | dheera wrote: | Males can more easily wait till 40+ to have children. | | Males don't have periods. If work hours are kept to a | healthy level, both males and females can achieve those | work hours averaged over a long time because there is | sufficient time for rest. If sufficient rest isn't | planned into the schedule, there isn't time for periods, | and that culture unfairly favors males. | | Males don't get pregnant, and are often looked down upon, | or lose promotion and investment opportunities, for | working less hours to help their pregnant or child- | rearing partners. The males who set aside time for family | are out-competed by males who either (a) don't value | having a partner or children or (b) treat their family | like crap by not being there for them. (I'm saying this | from direct observations of acquaintances and friends.) | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | I personally don't believe, at least at the | founder/executive level, that this is a standard that has | been set. Rather, there is a degree of self-organization | here. Individuals are making decisions that they believe | will help them compete better. I doubt there is a | practical route toward lessening this effect, short of | detonating the whole concept of the startup and possibly | the entire economic system. There is zero chance that | you're going to convince individual founders to take | steps that they believe will make them less competitive | in the name of "ethics." | | Personally I don't find it romantic at all, and therefore | I am not a startup founder. I love my 9-5. | itronitron wrote: | My personal experience has been that women are just as likely | to resort to toxic work practices as men. Though a lot | depends on how you define toxic. | rcpt wrote: | I don't think I've known anyone who worked a 996 or regular | 70 hour weeks. Where are you seeing this? | geodel wrote: | The one thing I am seeing is non-toxic folks are not opening | enough companies that offer great work-life balance, good pay | and other perks. So people who like good things are only | looking for jobs and not setting up companies and offering | these to others. | tobib wrote: | I feel the same way. So often we optimize for situations that | many of us feel shouldn't exist in the first place. | artificialLimbs wrote: | A young Buddhist monk went to a temple one day to renounce his | worldly life and find enlightenment. He found the eldest member | of the temple to be a very wise man and good friend. This elder | also scrubbed the toilets and cleaned up the bathrooms every | day. | | Seeing this, the new monk spoke with the other monks in the | monastery. "This is terrible! The elder should not have to do | such a lowly chore. He is a great man and has already helped me | to realize many things. I believe we should help give him time | to do more relaxing in his old age. Let's take his cleaning | supplies and hide them so that he won't have to clean the | bathrooms every day." The other monks agreed, and they hid his | supplies. | | The elder said nothing about the new state of affairs, but | instead began fasting. He did not eat for 2 days, then 3, then | 5. Concerned, the monks asked him "Why do you not eat?" | | The elder replied: "No work, no food." | drakonka wrote: | I think in some places society does work with this at least | reasonably well, at least from the perspective of employees - | I'm sure this is harder for startup founders. But I think that | startup founders are in the minority, whereas the child-raising | discourse usually touches on all kinds of professionals, | including normal employees. | | Where I live it is common for both parents to take long | stretches of leave to be with their children for the first few | years of their lives, and later it is common to take special | childcare days off if your child is sick, has school events, | etc etc. I _think_ the government pays for most or all of this | time, so I am thinking there is a way for startup founders to | claim it too, but I'm not 100% sure how that works. | | I don't know all the ways that it affected each person | professionally, but as someone on the team working closely with | quite a few of these people I never got the sense that it | hindered their position at the company. I've had a TD go on | 6-month paternity leave for kid 1, then go back on another | 6-month leave less than a year later for #2. He went on leave | leading a project and came back leading another project. | | Another anecdotal example: when I was joining my first project | at the place, our lead producer had just left for maternity | leave. Another producer was hired to temporarily fill her role. | When the original producer came back, there was no question of | her position: of course she was coming back to the team she'd | been leading. The replacement producer was simply moved to work | on another project. | | I often hear in online discourse that it can be disruptive to | the project when this type of thing happens, but personally I | just never experienced it like that (from the perspective of | the teammate who has experienced many people at the company | going on parental leave, not from the actual parent | perspective). I think when taking these amounts of parental | leave is the norm and not the exception, we find that it isn't | really as hard or scary as many companies seem to think it is. | It also has the benefit of fostering a culture where no one | person is absolutely pivotal to the project (or has to work | themselves to death lest their project falls apart since | everything depends on them...) They _will_ go on leave to spend | time with their child, and you as a team/company/management | have no option but to be prepared for that. | cutemonster wrote: | What's a TD? | | > The replacement producer was simply moved to work on | another project. | | I wonder about the theoretical situation when the replacement | did a significantly better job, and you needed just one | person for that job role. | | Then, I wonder if there could be some resentment when the | original less talented person returns and "kicks out" the | more talented one. | | Maybe a solution is to not be too attached to the company and | how it's going, and have a life outside work, hmm. And just | not care | | > fostering a culture where no one person is absolutely | pivotal to the project | | That sounds good. Maybe could even be a good thing to | practice project leader rotation, without anyone going for | parental leave | o_p wrote: | The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a | disaster for the human race. | u678u wrote: | Its interesting I had a friend who got pregnant at University. I | thought it would be ruinous to their career but maybe its a | better solution. When she was 40 her child was already an adult | and she could fully concentrate on working. | hycaria wrote: | Well thing is it most often ends up in parents splitting. | Although I have such a case in my entourage and it worked but I | think being religious helped them quite a bit ! (For the get | pregnant by accident and keep it too, now that I think of it.) | zwieback wrote: | In German there's an old saying "Jung gefreit hat nie gereut", | e.g. "married young, no regrets". It always seemed wrong when I | was young but my kids are just out of the house now and my | bones are already getting creaky. Maybe there's some truth to | those old sayings... | ksdale wrote: | This is an underrated perspective. My wife's mom became a | mother at 18, she certainly had a stressful 20's, but by her | 30's, she was just a mom working at a bank as a teller, and by | her 40's she was a woman in the back office with grown | children, and now at 50 she's a VP of something or other with | several grandchildren. | | Society so heavily stigmatizes teen pregnancy that she _still_ | thinks of herself as kind of a screwup, but minus all the self- | doubt, it seems like about as well as a life could possibly go. | lotsofpulp wrote: | It depends what type of business you want to go into. If you're | aiming for high finance/law/management/acting, it's improbable | to get into without following the normal formula. | munk-a wrote: | I disagree with all of those examples - most managers go into | managing late in life. My partner, for example, is current a | VP of Operations after diverting twenty years of their life | to care for a son with special needs. | | A whole lot of actors get into it later in life - but if | you're talking about being a hollywood actor than yea - the | chances of being a big movie star are vanishingly small no | matter what you do. | | A lot of really good lawyers go into the field after gaining | experience in another specialty and there are some notable | lawyers out there that didn't start practicing until well | into their forties - it's a very different track than pre-law | into a firm but it's quite doable. | | On the topic of finance (or "high finance") unless you just | generally mean "being rich" then I'd draw your eyes to the | fact that the finance industry actually employs a | disproportionately large number of women and boosts some of | the best work/life balance you can find out there. | | The normal formula is normal because it is the easiest to | approach, but making shifts to your life later on in age is | pretty cheap. You'd be surprised how little it costs you at | 30 or 35 to start taking night classes[1] and transition to a | new field - it's certainly not as easy as sticking with the | same thing but it isn't particularly difficult. | | 1. If those are even needed, honestly formal education is a | bit overvalued and having any formal education is generally | transferable to other fields outside of highly specialized | scientists - next time you're in the office ask around and | see if one of your coworkers has a communications degree - | they probably do. | u678u wrote: | Agreed, but that is like 0.1% of all people. | yanslookup wrote: | Grass is always greener for me but I often think if I could do | it over I'd rather have children as early as possible instead | of in my late 30s. | | I think if I had known how young late 30s and 40s actually is | it may have resonated. Like, I still do all of the hobbies and | activities I did in my 20s and am arguably in the best shape of | my life, pandemic bod not withstanding. I think I truly felt my | youth was fleeting and I wanted to be able to "enjoy it". | | The reality is I squandered it in some ways and I feel a bit of | sadness that my children will have a dad in his 60s by the time | they are out of the house. Should have given that youthful | energy to them with something to spare as adults. In reality I | probably won't have much left when they become adults. | | Such is life! | | EDIT: Someone down thread makes another point that applied to | us. By the time we were "ready", we found we had "unexplained | infertility". Science helped us out but it wasn't fun, it was | stressful, and pushed our parenthood even later than planned. | fertilitythrow1 wrote: | RE "unexplained fertility" - exact same thing happened to us. | | We waited until we were "ready" (are we ever "ready"? | certainly didn't feel like it when the baby arrived!) but it | took about 4 years to actually have the baby. Miscarriages, | then just _nothing_ apart from endless mechanical & | unromantic sex day after day after day for years, with deeply | upsetting emotional consequences when nothing happened. | | Everything checks out medically and the doctors cheerily just | say "keep trying!" but then write "unexplained infertility" | on your report as you plod back home for more fruitless | intercourse. No one can explain why it is not working as the | usual battery of tests they do come back fine ... you begin | to envy and resent people you see who are pregnant, you cant | look at a cute puppy/kitten because you feel like you'll | never have a baby, you simmer with inner rage when someone at | work brings in their baby to show around the office, or | someone mentions their kids etc ..."HoW cAn thEYy bE _sO | INSENSITIVE?!?!?!?!_ " you fume to yourself as you die a | little inside. It is quite the existential torture. | | To HNers reading this: If this sounds like you, please do | yourself a favor and find a clinic that deals with immune- | related infertility. During consultations for starting IVF, | one clinic casually noted that my wife had "natural killer" | CD16+ and CD56+ cells that might be causing the miscarriage | and no natural pregnancies. We immediately found a clinic | that specialised in treating that condition and 2 months | later we had a natural pregnancy that went full term - our | baby boy was born 1 year ago and he is thriving. After 4 hard | years of sorrow and misery, it just took some basic immune- | modulating drugs and we got pregnant naturally after just two | months, and a totally textbook baby (straight down the middle | on weight & size etc) was born naturally with no | complications. It can happen - good luck. | mensetmanusman wrote: | I imagine a futuristic society would have dorm-like options for | people to have children while in college/graduate school. | | Having a supportive community in an educational environment would | be a win/win/win for all. | | As is mentioned elsewhere, it is not as fun raising kids when you | are older and slower. | | It's great being able to experience youth with the new youth. | | People with kids will self report higher levels of meaning and | focus in their work, so a village/dorm like environment in a | university might be an ideal place to take advantage of such a | situation. | powerslacker wrote: | I'm not so sure freezing eggs is sound advice. | | Lord Winston, who is professor of fertility studies at Imperial | College London, warned that it was "a very unsuccessful | technology" and said: "The number of eggs that actually result in | a pregnancy after freezing is about 1%." He later clarified he | was referring to live births. | | https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51463488#:~:text=Lord%20Wins.... | | "It's not like I would discourage egg freezing. Women should be | doing it because it's the best option they have, but it is not an | insurance policy," says Christos Coutifaris, past president of | the ASRM and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the | University of Pennsylvania. "Insurance policies usually guarantee | a payoff. In this case, there is no guarantee." | https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/14/133377/mothers-j... | jartelt wrote: | Just for context, numbers I have been told from multiple | fertility doctors are: | | 20-30% of eggs extracted will fertilize and grow to day 5 | blastocysts (aka embryos). The rest will die before reaching | day 5. | | If the eggs were preserved before the women turned 35, each | blastocyst has a roughly 70% chance of being chromosomally | normal (which means it is a "good, viable embryo"). For women | above 35 years old, the percentage of viable blastocysts goes | down (e.g. for a 40 year old, ~40% of blastocysts are viable). | This is why is it is important to preserve eggs early. | | Each chromosomally normal day 5 blastocyst has about a 50% | chance to result in a live birth after it is transferred. | | So... if you are 35 years old and start with say 12 frozen | eggs, you are maybe going to end up with 2-3 viable day 5 | embryos, which are likely to turn into 1.5 children. | | Note that this presumes everything is in working order with the | woman's reproductive system. Egg quality issues or other issues | can make the probabilities for each step decrease. | theptip wrote: | I don't agree with this take. IVF live birth rates are | something like 30% of implantations. e.g. see | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139227/. | | The article you're linking even says that Winston is using the | wrong number, and spends most of its time explaining why he's | wrong; | | > Lord Winston's 1% figure was referring to the proportion of | all frozen eggs thawed for use in fertility treatment which | result in a pregnancy and subsequent live birth. | | You have plenty of eggs; it's not particularly relevant if a | single egg has a 1% chance of resulting in a live birth. The | extraction process will gather something like 10 eggs (plus or | minus a lot) and then later you fertilize lots of those eggs | and select the best candidates for implantation. Selectively | quoting the single-egg success rate provides an inaccurate | picture of the actual success rates of the overall process (one | that's quite obscure and therefore susceptible to people | misunderstanding when articles publish misleading advice like | this). | | Furthermore, research shows that the primary factor determining | live birth rate is the age of the eggs. As you get above 37/38 | the live-birth rate starts to decrease dramatically. If you | freeze your eggs at 35 then implant at age 40 then you don't | see the same increase in failure rate as if you just did IVF at | age 40. | | IF you want to postpone having kids until your 40s, but you | know you really want to have kids at that age, then freezing | your eggs is a good strategy for those that can afford it. | | I'm all for giving women more choices/options around child- | bearing; it's already difficult enough for women to balance | career and children in modern society. | | > Insurance policies usually guarantee a payoff. In this case, | there is no guarantee. | | If you're looking to buy an insurance policy that guarantees | you will get pregnant, I'm sorry to say no such thing exists. | All you can do is improve your probabilities. Freezing your | eggs does this. | | > Women should be doing it because it's the best option they | have | | Again your quote is actually arguing for freezing eggs being a | good option. What would you say "sound advice" is for women | that want to defer having children until their 40s, if it's not | freezing their eggs? | Goronmon wrote: | _The extraction process will gather something like 10 eggs | (plus or minus a lot)..._ | | Isn't 10 minus "a lot", close to or equal to 0? Or is there | something I'm missing with this phrasing? | theptip wrote: | Perhaps I was being overly flippant as I don't have the | precise distribution. I'm sure it could be zero, I don't | know how often that is though. A quick Google gives 10-20 | on average: | | https://www.arcfertility.com/how-is-ivf-done-step-by- | step/#:.... | bdcravens wrote: | Age can affect this. We didn't freeze my wife's until her | late 30s; only 4 eggs were created. | gnicholas wrote: | A 2018 study [1] showed that kids conceived via IVF had | abnormal arterial development. IIRC, teenagers had arteries | that were as stiff as an average 40-year-old. | | 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815705/ | Domenic_S wrote: | Ehhh... the only conclusion I can see there is that more | study is warranted. The sample was n=17, normal BMI children | currently living in CA with parents who used Stanford for | IVF. The control was several years older, and looking at the | box plots there's substantial overlap in most measurements. | caeril wrote: | I mean, sure. We need more research. But shouldn't the null | hypothesis be that children born of a novel and | extraordinarily unnatural process be less healthy than | those born of the usual process? | | There's no reason to believe that after all the factors | arrayed against IVF children (poor starting egg quality, | genetic and cellular damage from ice crystals, | mitochondrial damage potential, implantation problems, etc) | that the null hypothesis would be "they will be exactly the | same". | Domenic_S wrote: | > _(poor starting egg quality, genetic and cellular | damage from ice crystals, mitochondrial damage potential, | implantation problems, etc)_ | | Well, IVF doesn't necessarily imply any of those things | -- in male infertility the eggs may be of high quality, | in a fresh cycle the embryos may not be frozen at all, in | a healthy mother there may be no implantation issues, | etc. There are perhaps hundreds of factors to control | for, and the null hypothesis would change depending on | the population of IVF children (and their parental | history) you're studying. | mbgerring wrote: | In the United States, it's economically difficult verging on | impossible for young people to have and raise children. Between | the increasing costs of housing, childcare, and education, it | shouldn't surprise anyone that more and more people are putting | off starting a family until they're able to earn and save a | substantial amount of money. That leads people like the author of | this post to the very rational decision to delay pregnancy. If | you want a society where people are _practically_ free to start a | family instead of putting everything they have into earning | money, you need to fix things up from the material conditions, | not down from the culture. | ernst_klim wrote: | >In the United States, it's economically difficult | | I doubt that until you pretend to have living conditions on par | with these in Pakistan. | | I bet people simply are ambitious, and have way higher | expectations regarding living standards, hence this feeling of | struggling in pursuing the expected standards. | | > you need to fix things up from the material conditions | | Birth rates: | | Pakistan: 3.51 | | India: 2.22 | | US: 1.73 | | Denmark: 1.73 | | Seems like living conditions doesn't matter that much, or the | correlation is negative. | | > If you want a society where people are practically free to | start a family | | Do I? Why would I want a world where people are practically | free to start a family? I think people who would like to start | a family should prove that they a responsible and can manage at | least their own life, not to mention the life of an infant. | mbgerring wrote: | OK, now show me the average percent of a person's income | required to secure a roof over your head in Pakistan. We | could also talk about the difference in availability of | childcare in Pakistan, or any country where strong family | ties and multi-generational households are common, vs higher- | income countries without these features. We would also have | to consider that in many high-income countries it is | literally illegal to live below a certain standard of living | without running the risk of having your children taken from | you by the state. | ernst_klim wrote: | > show me the average percent of a person's income required | to secure a roof over your head in Pakistan | | Very high. Avg US person spends 6.4% on food, while avg | Pakistani spends 40%+. [1] | | > We could also talk about the difference in availability | of childcare in Pakistan, or any country where strong | family ties | | This is my point. People in the wealthy countries are way | more focused on their careers and consumption (no negative | implied). It's not that people can't have more childcare | by, say, earlier retirement or one parent dedicating | themself to babysitting at the expense of the lower living | standards. | | > We would also have to consider that in many high-income | countries it is literally illegal to live below a certain | standard of living without running the risk of having your | children taken from you by the state. | | Relevant maybe for lower few percents in the West, while | you are talking about "young people" in general. | | [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows- | how-mu... | praveenperera wrote: | Whats the success rate of frozen eggs? | notRobot wrote: | It's complicated, see this article for more info: | https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51463488 | spoonjim wrote: | Very high if they're frozen when the woman is <35. | notRobot wrote: | That's a terrible answer for a website like HN where accuracy | is important. | spoonjim wrote: | ok, here's your accurate answer: every situation is | different and predictions are impossible. | jimbob45 wrote: | The answer is that fertility only goes down. If you want to | ever get pregnant, you should begin at least taking initial | steps today rather than waiting. | boatsie wrote: | Yes, I think GP is noting that egg quality declines | somewhat exponentially, rather than linearly. | snicker7 wrote: | Or delay the startup. Older founders are more successful, anyway. | You don't have to give up family. Just wait until your kids moved | out (or are teenagers and ignore you, anyway). | | People who trade their happiness for money will lose their | happiness and (statistically) their money as well. | realreality wrote: | The earth doesn't need more high-carbon-footprint kids. The | richest 10% are responsible for more than half of global | consumption emissions (https://www.oxfam.org/en/press- | releases/carbon-emissions-ric...). When they reproduce, they're | likely to pass on their profligate culture to their kids. It'd be | better for everyone if they abstained. | usize wrote: | Thanks for pointing this out. It makes me so sad when I see my | friends waiting too long and struggling with their fertility. | ksdale wrote: | I agree completely with the premise that most people don't | appreciate just how fleeting fertility can be, but I think rather | than freezing eggs, the solution is for people to normalize | having children at a younger age and designing work and home life | around children existing and even being present in certain work | contexts. | | Obviously freezing your eggs is something that you can do as | individual without society's input, and my preferred solution is | a cultural overhaul... | | But economic productivity is only useful insofar as it leads to | better lives for people, economic activity that increases well- | being by one unit is pointless if it requires us to spend more | than one unit of well-being (by say, freezing our eggs and not | becoming grandparents until we're 80) to achieve it. | notjes wrote: | > the solution is for people to normalize having children at a | younger age and designing work and home life around children | 100% In ancient times mothers always worked with babys strapped | to their stomachs. A baby needs a mother and it needs to be fed | with nice milk constantly. I was really happy seeing a lady | breastfeeding her child in the Australian parliament. An safe | and sane environment where this is normality needs to be the | goal. | centimeter wrote: | It's clear that, on so many levels, the gradual deferral of | child-bearing to the 30s (even 40s!) has been _incredibly_ | costly and destructive to society. | | We need to figure out a way to reconcile having children | starting in the late teens and ending in the mid-20s (which is | by far the safest, cheapest, and easiest time to do it) with | the modern economy (which prioritizes slavishly focusing on | school/work until your fertility has mostly dried up and you're | at massively increased risk of passing on genetic | abnormalities). | | One strategy could be to have child-rearing skip a generation, | with grandparents (in their 30s/40s) doing most of the work | while the parents (in their teens/20s) go to school and start | their career. | SCUSKU wrote: | For a while I've been thinking about moving back in/near my | parents so that if/when I decide to start a family, they can | be around to help out so as dampen the career stunting | effects of having children. I think this would especially be | useful to my then wife, but of course such things sound great | on paper but are much more difficult to execute in reality. | cam0 wrote: | How do you think it's been incredibly costly and destructive | to society? | centimeter wrote: | Medical outcomes rapidly become _much_ worse and more | expensive for both mother and child as mothers age, as well | as precipitously falling birth rates partially attributable | to the increased difficulty of having marginal children as | one gets older. | mycologos wrote: | I made a comment elsewhere in the thread trying to | quantify the way outcomes change with the mother's age | [1]. Using the data referenced in that comment, it looks | like outcomes are quite stable for the entirety of a | woman's 20s and still decent into her early 30s. The real | change seems to occur in the early-mid 30s. | | In contrast, your parent comment prioritizes women having | children at age 20-25. Looking at the data I just | referenced, this seems unnecessarily aggressive from a | medical standpoint -- do you have a different measure of | maternal outcomes in mind? (And from a non-medical | standpoint, I'm skeptical that late teens/early 20s are | the best time for modern humans to choose the parent of | their child.) | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26349221 | golemiprague wrote: | I am not even sure women at work improved the economic | situation of the family that much. I am generalising here and I | know there are exceptions but most of the work women do is a | replacement to what a housewife used to do. | | They don't create new companies or businesses, they don't work | in anything related to infrastructure or creation of actual | physical value. They don't do engineering and even music | creation and production is mostly done by men. | | Women concentrate in care taking, from teachers to social | workers to nurses and services or value transfer like lawyers, | marketers, HR and such. Those jobs don't create anything new or | tangible and are basically the same jobs they used to do at | home, caring for the family, some services and moving the | husband money around. | | In some way they were more productive as housewives by doing in | parallel and cheaply many jobs that are now outsourced. Their | salary was just swallowed by land owners increasing rent and | house prices in addition to all the house work they now have to | pay for to other women. | | It is all a scheme that we suppose to believe is helping anyone | while what actually is happening is that men still finance | women as it was always was but now instead of the husband | giving their wife the money directly they do it via their | corporate accounting funnelling men hard work money to some | women in HR to do another program about diversity and | inclusiveness. | [deleted] | steve_taylor wrote: | Amen. I really don't understand the stigma around having | children when you're young. It should be the norm. | snuxoll wrote: | Had my one and only child at 21 (wife is 10 years older than | I am, mind), never once regretted it and my career never | suffered (went from a $12/hr tech support job to being a | decently paid DevOps engineer over a 4-year time span | following our daughters birth). | | Am I on a more extreme end of the spectrum? Absolutely, and I | wouldn't recommend it to everyone; but I'm happy with the | choice I made. | nappy-doo wrote: | My MIL used to say, "there's a reason that they make mothers | young," and it's because kids are exhausting. As a mid-40s | male, I can't imagine bringing a child into my life again right | now. I would die before 50 from sleep deprivation. | krrrh wrote: | I just had my first at 45, and it is worth it, but I do now | appreciate the wisdom of my friends who did this in their | twenties. | nitemice wrote: | But it's not just about work/home balance. It's also about | being in a financially sound position, in a strong enough | relationship with the "right" person, to be able to have a | child. And that's increasingly hard for young people today, | with the cost of living being higher than ever, wage growth | hitting a wall, and attitudes towards relationships changing. | Having a baby isn't as simple as deciding to do it. | | The problem is that society has been moving in basically the | exact opposite direction for quite a while now. Anyone married | under 25 is seen as weird and rushing into something, and | anyone with a child at that age is assumed to have gotten | themselves there by accident. | StillBored wrote: | Why is this specific to females? This happens to males | indirectly. Unless your fabulously wealthy and can basically hire | a 25 Y/O wife/Surrogate Mother, most men have steadily declining | chance to have a child as they get older too. Simply because the | available pool of fertile females willing to have a child with | them is declining. | | That is not even to mention actual biological problems that make | men functionally infertile. So while its technically possible for | men to have children until they are dead, realistically a large | number are loosing their fertility as well. I know couples in | their 30's/early 40's where it turned out to be the male causing | the problems. | supergirl wrote: | I think it's implied that it's easier for men to have children | and not drop the ball on the career; so they don't need to wait | until they are old. A newborn is a much bigger disruption for | the mother than the father. This is biological but also | cultural (e.g. in some EU countries only women get a months | long paid vacation after birth). | StillBored wrote: | Maybe.. OTOH, in the US it seems the common expectation these | days it that men pull their weight when it comes to raising | children. God knows I would have gotten divorced if I | continued to work till 10PM leaving my wife at home with a | young child. | | Which maybe, if the man is ok with biologically having a | child they see a couple times a month that works, otherwise | most men are going to be up feeding the baby all night long | too, and picking them up from school, staying home to take | care of them when they are sick. | | So, just the split work/family focus is going to remove most | men from the competition to be top dog at the office unless | they are successful enough, and can find a women willing to | be a housewife. | | Women can probably pull this off in reverse if they are | successful enough, and find an "artist" or someone already | outside of the traditional male career paths too. | Biologically its not unheard of for women to work until their | due date and then return to work in a week or so, leaving the | child with a caregiver (frequently an aging parent/etc). | | Of course if she wants to participate in the child's | upbringing the split focus issues will likely arise too. | | Hence my comment that to imagine this is strictly a female | problem is an oversimplification. Yes, the problems are | slightly different, but to imagine a man can work his way up | to some level of success and then find a younger woman | willing to be a housewife to a 20 year older man is a risky | proposition too. | [deleted] | bdcravens wrote: | My wife and I waited too long to try IVF, and at that point, we | had only one shot because we hadn't frozen more eggs sooner. (and | our once chance was unsuccessful) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-04 23:01 UTC)