Hacker News Reader

Comment by leeoniya | Hacker News Reader

IMO, to be a successful CEO, women have to give up as much personal life as men do. if raising children is part of the equation, it just depends on how much either sex is willing to give that up for a career. i believe i've read that Elon's family is pretty hard-hit on the available-father standpoint stemming from his ambitions.

also, depending on the size of the company, i think women CEOs need to take on some atypically aggressive and assertive business characteristics that are unbecoming of either sex but are typically more acceptable in society for men to step into.

could a woman be the next Larry Ellison? certainly yes, but not without first taking on his asshole qualities. the aggressive characteristics that make him a great multi-$bn CEO also make him a pretty hated guy in many circles. there's a difference between business-respect and personal-respect, some people don't give a shit about the latter and will step on their partners' throats to get ahead.

View on HN

> women have to give up as much personal life as men do

Women have to give up more than men. Guys can spend their 20s, 30s, and even 40s working nights and weekends to build the foundations of a successful company, with the goal of starting a family after they've 'made it'.

The window of opportunity for women is a lot narrower. If you're a woman entrepreneur in your 30's and want to eventually start a family, you'll have some much tougher choices to make than a guy in a similar situation.

I know people have done it before but I couldn't imagine going all out on the early days of building a startup while having to care for a baby, as a father or mother.

> The window of opportunity for women is a lot narrower.

Really?

A friend of mine is 24 and her parents got here when they were in their sixties.

You can always talk about edge cases, which do not reflect the reality for vast majority of women.

At least the window to give a birth to a child for a average woman is a lot smaller than a average man.

It is smaller, but it's not like all women have to get their children before 30...

A male CEO of any age can have biological children with someone of prime fertility age. A female CEO doesn't have the same luxury.

Your friend must be a test tube baby because all women have gone through menopause by 50.

It was rather strange, yes. I mean her parents are now over 80 and were already alcoholics before they got her. Maybe good genetics or something.

If your point was to say that biological fertilization+pregnancy+motherhood is not the only opportunity for a woman to have a family, you made your point too obliquely for this audience.

Probably.

Most of HN users have different opinions than me or simply don't understand what I'm trying to say. Also I'm not a good writer lol

Indeed, especially since fertility deteriorates quickly.

Not only for women...

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v14/n11/full/nm1108-1170a.h...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/health/fathers-age-is-link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-risk...

Huh, I never figured.

I guess that's a reason to spermbank. Though really, people should just have kids young in the first place. :/

I disagree - I would have made a terrible father if I had kids in my 20s.

I mean, I might still make a terrible father, but I'm trying to imagine 23 year old me raising a child and it's terrifying.

Don’t worry too much about being a bad father - as long as you are there at least some of the time and don’t beat them and their mother then they will almost certainly turn out OK.

My experience with my own children is the effect you can have on them is very limited - this is both liberating and depressing.

You are largely correct: http://www.amazon.com/The-Nurture-Assumption-Children-Revise...

But for children of older fathers, there are well documented advantages as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/older-fathers-may-pass-health-...

http://www.mommyish.com/2012/06/12/older-fathers-benefits-65...

> Women have to give up more than men.

I don't think the couple weeks most women might consider the minimum during maternity leave is significant.

It seems pretty even IMO. Waiting until your 40's, 50's or 60's for a man doesn't come without it's own trade-offs.

Most men who "someday want a family", entrepreneurs or not, are probably going to want to start a family before 40 I'd guess. I don't think gender probably plays a very big role in the "when" decision.

I hope people are taking more than a couple of weeks. I know this is America and all, but 2 weeks?!? If I was a (male) CEO I'd definitely take more time than that, at least to set an example that people shouldn't feel like they can't take time.

You'd hope. That's all I could take off (paid) for my daughter's birth though. I had a little more time for my son's (first born).

Leaving out details, but I'll say my wife's time/compensation package was _far_ better than mine. If anything her career has accelerated sharply since our first born. Which is positive of course. But it certainly seems counter to the "prevailing wisdom" on HN.

>>If anything her career has accelerated sharply since our first born. Which is positive of course. But it certainly seems counter to the "prevailing wisdom" on HN.

Earlier you said:

>>I cook the vast majority of breakfasts/dinners/meal-planning. Do almost all the dishes. Do 75% of the day-care pick-ups/drop-offs. Most of the late-at-the-office-hours are hers.

I think your situation is not the norm. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not the norm. btw, I'm married with a 3yr.old daughter and a son on the way. In case this context is needed.

Your homework for today is to go ask your mother if having and raising a child is equivalent to taking two weeks off work.

I'm not even sure what your point is. Other than trying to be offensive.

I have two young children. I cook the vast majority of breakfasts/dinners/meal-planning. Do almost all the dishes. Do 75% of the day-care pick-ups/drop-offs. Most of the late-at-the-office-hours are hers.

If you're going to get into a discussion about gender bias it'd probably help to leave your own at the door.

Actually, I grew up in a family like that and my mother would still disagree with you, vehemently.

That a couple weeks of maternity leave isn't a career killer?

I'm guessing here because you haven't left me much to go on, other than you seem to think your Dad didn't do his fair share I guess?

Or my assertion that having kids while you're still young, having time to see them grow up and be an active part of their lives, seeing them go on to make their own families, that all that stuff is something men in general think about as well?

While "gender identity" probably doesn't play a large role in the "when" decision, unfortunately "gender expectations" do. Most societies expect different things of different genders, regardless of what the individual wants, leading to social pressures. Luckily that doesn't apply to America as much these days.

The problem is childcare which lasts much longer than 2 weeks. A woman who wants to focus on career and have children would be best served marrying a guy with less career aspirations than her which she would be less likely to run into in corporate circles.

I'm not sure this assertion holds any water for one. But I don't see how this could be framed a gender specific issue for another I suppose. Either way make sure your partner understands your ambitions when you get together?

There are probably selection factors at play too in that there are simply less men available who want to be househusbands than there are women who want to be housewives.

Successful men are probably also sexually more attractive to women than vice versa, an aspiring househusband with a low paid job would probably find it harder to get a date with a female CEO than the other way around.

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/ec_evolanth.pdf

Don't worry, there aren't very many CEOs total. There are plenty of trophy husbands to go around.

> Guys can spend their 20s, 30s, and even 40s working nights and weekends to build the foundations of a successful company, with the goal of starting a family after they've 'made it'.

That sounds as a sexist stereotype. Do you have statistics that this actually represent the norm for CEO's?

Biology plays a factor - bearing children becomes more dangerous for both mother and child after the late 30s.

Yes, but not everyone want or decide to have children.

Simply claiming that because men can wait after they've 'made it', doesn't mean that every man on every continent will do it. That what I asked for, statistics that prove that men actually do it: wait until they've 'made it' to form families.

Or is "Biology" proof enough, and anyone who ask for evidence that stereotypes actually is the norm is simply being disruptive to the discussion?

He's referring to the fact that women can't re-produce after a certain age. Also, the risk for complications at later-ages is a factor.

> i think women CEOs need to take on some atypically aggressive and assertive business characteristics that are unbecoming of either sex but are typically more acceptable in society for men to step into.

I agree. I'm going to come out and say it, it's difficult for a woman to step into any kind of leadership position and do the tough things without being perceived as a "bitch".

One thing I've observed in women who might be perceived as successful in those roles is that they're able to find the right way of being in charge and overcoming those perceptions. I think it's a subtle attitude or behavior change, and it seems to be a fine line.

But I'll also say that for men, they risk being perceived as "an asshole" in much the same way. And demonstrating assertiveness and leadership, being tough when it's needed it also a similar skill. I just think that men have more societal support and a few thousand years more practice and training to figure it out.

Women have far fewer role models to pattern after.

In many circles being an "asshole CEO" is seen as a good thing. c.f. Steve Jobs.

But that's exactly the point. Men can be "asshole CEOs" and be respected. When women are "asshole CEOs" they are considered to be "bitches".

Isn't "asshole" as negative as "bitch"? Woman or man, you probably won't be loved by everybody.

Fine, throw out the word 'asshole' and replace it with 'unlikeable'. The point is that men can be unlikable and still command respect. Women are much less likely to be met with that reaction.

> Women are much less likely to be met with that reaction.

This does not seem to be the case in my small sample of anecdotal experience. Could you say a bit more on why you think it is the case in general?

To my (non native speaker) ears, "asshole" sounds less offensive because it's gender neutral. An asshole can be a man or a woman, but only a woman can be a bitch. So calling an aggressive or ruthless CEO "a bitch" sounds slightly more offensive and sexist to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

I've only ever heard asshole used in reference to men, the sentence "she's an asshole" sounds weird to me.

To be more confusing, "bitch" has a different meaning when applied to men.

perhaps nature/evolution/biology has a lot to do with this, not just societal views.

people see an aggressive male and say "oh, that's just his nature" and the opposite for agressive women, "oh, what's wrong with her?". the converse is equally true: men who are overly submissive are considered to have "issues". testosterone makes males more aggressive as a gender, they are designed to fight and compete. i think blaming everything on cultural norms and sexism doesnt give enough credence to this.

i've always wondered why no one from "everyone is 100% equal" camp takes issue with male/female segregation in sports/olympics.

Blaming it on biology is basically a creative way of giving up on the problem, though. A submissive man will always be a man with "issues" because of "biology" and "nature".

Amazing, given all we've achieved to move beyond the biology and nature we had for tens of thousands of years, that we're still incapable of seeing an aggressive woman as 'normal'.

men and women are not the same. they certainly deserve the same treatment, but no amount of legislation or arguing will change the fact that they are biologically and chemically different, their brains are wired differently through hormones, chemistry. yes, culture can change this wiring to some degree, but it will never make the sexes equivalent and interchangeable. no one is "blaming" biology. it is not an "creative" way to treat people differently. the differences are there and have been there for tens of thousands of years and will continue to be there for thousands of years. disregarding biology is no less harmful than "blaming" it.

men and women are not the same.

That's a straw man opener, for sure. No-one is arguing that men and women are the same. What I am saying is that women and men are equally capable at being great business leaders. They are equally capable of assholes while doing so. But men are far more likely to be given a free pass on behaviour like that than women are.

There's nothing evolutionary about that. Someone's perception of you is not coded into your genetic pattern. It's cultural. A hundred years ago you could have easily claimed that women shouldn't have the vote because of tens of thousands of years of biological differences. What makes that argument any different to this one?

> Someone's perception of you is not coded into your genetic pattern

I agree. Though perception is not the same thing as caring about your perception. Being perceived as assholes (and enablers of child labor, pollution, etc) doesnt stop men from striving to be CEOs of huge international conglomerates. I do believe that there is a societal issue with appointing women as CEOs of existing enterprises (rather that women being CEOs/founders). This fear may be founded in "can this woman rise to the sufficient level of asshole necessary to always make shareholder-value-enhancing decisions?". maybe it is the higher morality of women (a good quality by anyone's standards) that acts as a glass ceiling in business.

> A hundred years ago you could have easily claimed that women shouldn't have the vote because of tens of thousands of years of biological differences. What makes that argument any different to this one?

no one is preventing women from giving up raising a family to dedicate themselves to business. i doubt that the disparity between male and female CEOs can solely be accounted for by oppression or the perception that "trying isnt worth it because i'm a woman"

> Blaming it on biology is basically a creative way of giving up on the problem, though

I think you're missing the point. If we acknowledge that there are differences then we can come to terms with the fact statistically men will always be more likely to be CEOs - that doesn't mean we should stop fighting sexism or whatever other issues we have culturally producing prejudice - but it does mean that we may not need to strive for some kind of ... statistical parity.

In another comment you say:

> What I am saying is that women and men are equally capable at being great business leaders

You have no way of knowing that. That's a pure guess on your part. We know that women and men have different brains on the biological and chemical level so, all things being equal, surely it would lead to a least SOME difference statistically on which gender ends up being CEO. The question after that is of degree and does our current gender ratio predominantly represent a biological or cultural phenomena.

Since we historically have a lot of different cultures, and all seem to produce significantly more male leaders than females on, I'd say the biological argument has a lot of weight. I could be wrong!

It's almost as though you have no idea that emergent effects and networks effects exist in complex systems, and interpersonal relations have no bearing on sociology.

I suppose you also believe that viability for US presidency is largely a genetic biological trait, since so many Bushes and other White Anglo-Saxons Protestants have gravitated toward it.

People at least pretend to respect aggressive men because they don't want to get beaten up. It's like at school where people are afraid to speak ill of the bullies. On some level I think we internalize this survival instinct.

I think "bitches" can command respect.

I worked for one who most certainly did.

Same here. I also see it as an almost endearing term between 'hardened' females.

"That's my bitch."

No one respects an asshole or a bitch if that is all they are. If you are one of these and great at what you do, people will often accept your character flaws. If you are an asshole and do not know anything, then you will soon end up with people who either have no other choice, or those actively trying to leave. Neither one of these will help you build a great company.

Not sure. It is probably about delivering results. If you get these by being a dictator this reflects of cause on your personality even more than when you are just deflecting it on "the team".

That is a very fine line to walk, and if you just appropriate that characteristic out of context you are asking for trouble. Steve Jobs was extremely skilled at what he did and for the most part kept the "moral high ground" and was fighting for what he himself had largely built.

Don't judge a CEO on their personal characteristics, judge them for what they do and stand for. The new CEO of Coca Cola said he needed to figure out how to get more people to drink Coke. Fuck him. There are a lot of CEOs who are not just really bad for their companies but really bad for the world. For the most part, I think Steve Jobs was ok and the world is better because of him. It is ok to stomp on toes but not simply for the sake of stomping on them.

There will be some really good female CEOs. I predict all of them will have actually built their own company.

It's important to be a successful CEO. If you're Steve Jobs at Apple's height, you could sacrifice children during the weekly round-up and people would nod sagely and talk about how doing that is part of what makes such a great CEO.

I suspect this is an industry-specific thing -- I don't see a lot of public hate for Fortune 100 CEOs Marillyn Hewson or Phebe Novakovic, both leaders of companies much more significant than Yahoo.

First lesson of executive leadership is that you need to learn how to not give a hoot about what people think about you on a personal level.

If you're worried about being a <whatever> you are unlikely to succeed when things go bad and action needs to be taken.

>>First lesson of executive leadership is that you need to learn how to not give a hoot about what people think about you on a personal level.

Incidentally, this is one of the primary characteristics of the now-abandoned concept of "sociopathy."

If you are considered a <whatever> to people you won't go anywhere.

despite you getting downvoted, there is some truth in this. but mostly at the very top of the food chain, where your sole accountability is to your shareholders which is expressed in terms of $$, nothing else.

> it's difficult for a woman to step into any kind of leadership position and do the tough things without being perceived as a "bitch".

I disagree that leadership is about being a bitch or an asshole.

Yes, it's widely said that Steve Jobs was an asshole. But people "got" where he was coming from. He was a perfectionist. I'm pretty sure he didn't alienate all his friends.

In leadership you have to be able to take tough decisions; but it's not about being tough with other people all the time. You might have to be tough with someone occasionally, it's a tool you might need to use.

Take Martha Stewart for example. Tough bitch ? Successful CEO ?

Several psychological studies indicate that adjectives like "ambitious" are often perceived as positive when describing men but negative when describing women. That does make the female leader's role more challenging.

You learn to just embrace the bitch label. It's the only way to get through it -- you're going to get called one whether you are or not, so you might as well own it and make it work for you. I'm actually a very nice person and treat my employees wonderfully but I've been told scare the shit out of certain people who don't know me very well. My reports have actually told me they love my reputation; they promote it so that 1) they get what need from other departments easier and 2) they don't have people fighting to get their jobs (I have by far the best department/division/employees).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com