Hacker News Reader

Comment by DevX101 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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...

> 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.

> 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.

> 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com