Hacker News Reader

Comment by hugh3 | Hacker News Reader

The weird thing about this article is that he doesn't mention his wife at all. The only mention of wives in general comes at the end ("if you don't do this you'll have a spouse who is not happy").

It seems to me that whether you can have a baby and a startup depends almost entirely on what your wife is like. There's no reason your wife can't take care of the baby on her own with you popping in every now and then to put the bread on the table; it just depends on how supportive she is.

(Yes, this post is horrendously sexist, no I don't feel like discussing that aspect of it, so if you feel compelled to stand up for the notion that men and women are entirely alike then just move on. For the case of a female entrepreneur I'd say no, you probably shouldn't have a baby and a startup at the same time.)

View on HN

Wow, that's a fairly sexist comment!

I write in a gender independent style (unlike your comment!).

That is why I didn't bring up a "my wife" or "your wife." Many of the folks who responded to the email were women running startups who have stay at home dads, or dads as primary caregivers.

Additionally, there are families with one parent, three parents, four parents and any number of gender permutations. (Think divorced folks who remarry/re-partner... thus the child having 3 or 4 parents).

I tried to address the issue of a startup founder and a baby, and figured it was implied that your partner (or partners) need to buy in.

You are correct in that you need your partner(s) buy in, but incorrect in that the person has to be a wife!

Finally, it's wildly offensive to say women should not run a startup. I'm guessing you are troll in order to get a reaction here, since you're making such an outlandish statement AND saying you won't discuss said outlandish statement (in a discussion forum).

Finally, it's wildly offensive to say women should not run a startup.

No, I said women shouldn't run a startup and have a baby at the same time. Apart from the fact that having a baby unavoidably takes up more of a woman's time than a man's on a biological level (how is babby fed?), the general observation is that women psychologically want to spend more time with their children than men do.

Men and women are largely interchangeable, except around breeding time, where their brains and bodies become very different. Their brains much less so than their bodies, but there's still a lot of instinct built into the human psyche.

As a more general point, while you'll sometimes go wrong with generalizations of the form "women like A while men like B" you'll go wrong less often than you will with the belief that men and women are completely interchangeable on all levels.

When exactly did he say "women should not run a startup."?

> "I write in a gender independent style (unlike your comment!)."

That seems fairly silly considering 95%+ of founders are men. Women founders are an edge case. Whether that's how things should be or not is a question for another day IMHO (Ask women why they don't want to be founders), but acknowledging the fact that 95% of founders are men, isn't being sexist.

I think his point is completely valid - if you have a supportive spouse, you can be 50% involved in baby, or you can be 1% involved in baby. If it's 1% then it won't really impact your success in a startup (Although you'll most likely live to regret it).

>> When exactly did he say "women >> should not run a startup."?

At the end of his message he writes: "For the case of a female entrepreneur I'd say no, you probably shouldn't have a baby and a startup at the same time.)"

>> Women founders are an edge case.

While it might be true that female founders are a small percentage, that doesn't mean they don't deserve the respect of being included in the discussion on equal footing.

They are equally capable of being founders, as such it's best to use gender-neutral language out of respect.

Another way to think of this, is that women wanting to vote was an edge case.

Another way to think of this is that black founders are an "edge case" according to your description. That doesn't mean you should exclude them from the discussion.

The words we choose are very important, and being inclusive costs you nothing but a little bit of empathy and diligence when thinking about the "edge cases."

And yes, his point about having a supportive spouse making it easier is correct. However, in many cases that spouse needs to make money to support the startup spouse--which precludes them being the primary caregiver. Which goes to my point of "start in your 20s, family in your 30s" advice.

> When exactly did he say "women >> should not run a startup."?

At the end of his message he writes: "For the case of a female entrepreneur I'd say no, you probably shouldn't have a baby and a startup at the same time.)"

Do I really have to explain what's wrong with that?

Is it really worth everybody's time for me to come up with a silly analogy like how "Jeff Goldblum cannot carry a sheep and a chainsaw simultaneously" is not the same thing as saying "Jeff Goldblum cannot carry a chainsaw?"

I'm assuming that it isn't.

My reaction to your post wasn't one of sexism, but that I don't believe you are a parent yourself. Once you are a parent, the most important thing in the world is (or at least should be) your child. You're asking the wrong question (and probably not in the right mindset to be a parent yet, which is totally OK) if you're thinking "Why can't I have my wife be the mom and I can just show up for dinner?". As a new parent myself for the first time, I find myself every day thinking "What can I get done in X amount of time so I can go be a daddy".

Yes and no. It's complicated... and it's important to find the right balance for everyone. Perhaps the woman is happy to be a stay at home mom and dedicate herself to that. Perhaps she wants to do that for a year or two and then go back to work. Or perhaps she has aspirations of her own that, to be brutally honest, conflict with having a child to some degree, especially if dad wants to dedicate as much time as possible to a startup or his career.

Of course, you can talk about this stuff beforehand, but once the baby arrives, everything can change in any case.

It's not easy, but hugh3 is right, if nothing else, about the fact that the woman plays a huge role in things (duh:-) and not mentioning that is leaving out some of the story.

Indeed, there is no rulebook to follow when it comes to life matters, and I agree that a proper balance (which is a very individual item) is important. My reply to hugh3 was solely around what I perceive to be a statement made by someone who is yet to be a parent. It's misguided to place any kind of gender stereotype on who plays what role, and it only takes away from the larger message that once a child is brought into this world, the most important and influential job you can have is one of being a parent.

It's not that easy.

Being a daddy means many things. In the early years obviously your kid will need nothing but your attention. You could be banging cucumbers on your head and you would be bonding.

But as your child grow older shouldn't you also stand for something? Be someone they can look up to be inspired by?

My kid is the most important think in the world, but exactly for that reason I am not stopping everything I have build up so far. I want that to be an inspiration, not just someone he can play hide and seek with.

I don't think that considering your child the most important thing in the world is good for anybody (including your child):

1) Your wife is probably more important, than your child: in 20 years your child would be gone (to have separate life), but you would stay with your wife longer than that.

2) You can have several children. Would you name one of them as "the most important"?

3) If you consider you child the most important -- it may spoil the child.

That said -- children are definitely important part of your life.

This could be true for humans in general, if humans weren't products of evolution. Ever notice that anyone who writes blog posts about babies on HN are absurdly pro-baby? It's because we wouldn't pass on our genes if we weren't.

It's possible for a father, perhaps, to consider the wife more important (after all, she can produce more babies!) but I doubt most mothers would agree that the husband is more important than the child, especially since a growing number of them don't even have one.

Re: 3, thinking that your child is the most important thing in your life has little bearing on how you raise them, except perhaps on the tail end where parents do not care at all and the child ends up being taken away by the DSS.

1) The reason why baby-posters are so pro-baby is not as much about natural selection, but more about different kind of filter: the one who is NOT pro-baby is less likely to write about babies.

Not that it matters in the context of this discussion though :-)

2) Wife can not only produce more babies, but also raise existing kids, support the family (financially and otherwise), and more.

The same is applicable to the husband.

3) Internal thinking affects your behavior. A lot. So if you think that your kid is THE MOST important thing in your life -- you are more likely to make mistakes and bad choices.

Deleted comment

Once you have kids ... They are more important than anything.

Nope. Not for my wife and I. Our marriage comes first, our children a very close second.

...your children should mean absolutely everything to you. Nothing else should matter in the world.

A lot of other things matter in my world. My daughter is just one aspect of my life (albeit one of the most awesome aspects!).

I grew up with parents who sacrificed way too much of their own lives "for the children", with horrible consequences (they fought constantly, and I grew up wishing they would get a divorce).

@dennisgorelik && @ThomPete

I used 'child', but I did mean 'children'. Not going to travel down the road of semantics there.

I also don't believe I advocated, nor did Jason in his post, the stopping of everything else in one's life so that they can be a parent. "Most" important implies that there are other things of importance in ones life, and having accomplishments that can be shared with or serve as inspiration to our children is a wonderful gift to give.

As Einstein said, "Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."

But what is your point of saying "most" important then?

To most parent's their children is the most important so I don't think you need to spell that out, we know.

Therefore I can only assume that you meant something different. If not then fine, then I just don't understand the purpose of your post.

Although you may pop in one day, carrying the bread, to find no one at home, and the closets emptied.

I second that. But it's about the time you have for your whole family including your wife.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com