[xiphias]

I thought that money raising is for people who put all their effort into making a fast-growing company and need money to make the growth even faster. It's about choosing not having a life in return for the possibility for creating a big company.

I have no problem with that person being a male or female. But I can't imagine any person (mom or dad) being able to put 15 hours a day to a company with the baby after the baby is born. That's the first thing the article should deal with.

[CalRobert]

A man can conceal the fact of his expecting a child soon. A woman, usually, is unable to do so. Both will be affected by the child, but the investor may be more likely to favour the man, which is unfair.

[RyanZAG]

Would I invest in a startup with the founder about to have a baby? No. Either they will be dedicating a big part of their life in the near future to raising that baby correctly, or they will be ignoring that baby and leaving someone else to raise it. I find the second outcome even worse than the first, but I'm not going to invest in either.

Now a man might be able to deceive me by simply not disclosing this while a woman is going to have a very difficult time. But I wouldn't say this is unfair: the man is simply easier able to pass off his awfulness than the woman.

It's like saying a woman is more likely to be able to shoplift and get away with it than a man and this is unfair. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, it's certainly not 'unfair'.

[CalRobert]

A parent has to deeply consider whether they will be able to dedicate sufficient attention to their child and their company. Some may determine they can't, some that they can with reasonable accommodation, and some will decide to give either the child or the company short shrift.

The woman, by virtue of being visibly pregnant, will have to suffer the potential investor guessing which of the three she is, while the man will not. The investor doesn't know what that person's family dynamic is.

Similarly, lots of people make incorrect assumptions about what a physically disabled person will be able to accomplish, and the person with the disability suffers their bias. I think it's up to the person with the disability, or the parent, to judge whether founding a company is appropriate.

Of course, that doesn't mean you have to fund them. After all, it's your money. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of preconceived notions we have about parenting based on very deep-seated cultural norms and biases which may not always be accurate.

[rayiner]

How much time does it take to "raise a baby correctly?" Parenting is heavily driven by cargo culting, old wives' tales, and conventional wisdom; but very little by actual data.

[__abc]

A metric major fuck ton.

If you truly want to be present and have an active role in your child's life, growth, development et al it's going to force your priorities to shuffle around.

If your "startup" is still a priority (but not above your child) you aren't going to be in the office from sun up to sun down. Period.

You'll have to make up those hours later (when the child is sleeping) however, in months 0-24, that's really tough as most children (at least not mine) didn't sleep well during that phase.

During those years, and for me it spanned 5 calendar years given multiple children, working late at night was a luxury, not an option I could plan on.

I however, disclosed that when taking a CTO position at a company that just wrapped up a ~$20 dollar round. It was transparent to them and set the right expectations.

I do acknowledge that a company in that stage albeit not out of the woods, is not in the same position in the seed, Series-A phase.

If you look in my comment history I gave a "day in the life of" for my schedule on how I manage running a startup and keeping my family, health, self priority #1, #2, and #3. It's buried in there somewhere.

[rayiner]

> A metric major fuck ton.

[Citation needed]

I don't have have reliable scientific evidence either way, but my speculation is that the vast majority of differences in outcomes between kids can be attributed to: genetics, nutrition, parental wealth, and education (in that order). I've found no reason to believe that "hav[ing] an active role in your child's life" (versus hiring good nannies and teachers to do the same), has much long-term impact on kids. Sometimes, when I'm cynical, I think it's a kind of moralistic conventional wisdom that's mostly perpetuated as a way to keep women "in their place."

[infinite8s]

I think the key qualifier to "A metric major fuck ton" in the gp comment is the statement immediately afterward: "If you truly want to be present and have an active role in your child's life, growth, development et al it's going to force your priorities to shuffle around."

Of course with sufficient money you can buy excellent replacement care. I would slightly reorder you attribution list, putting parental wealth at the beginning, since that can practically overcome all the rest (especially nutrition and education - genetics is tougher, but short of life-altering conditions money can overcome that too).

[x0x0]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7779598

[__abc]

Other things I've added is putting my phone on a shelf when I come home and only answering emails after my kids have gone to bed and my wife and I have had some time to hang out.

I also take two lunches a week where I hit the gym and go two additional times (in the evening and once in the morning on the weekends).

My point being, the business I help run is thriving, dates/goals are being met, people are happy, and the world kept turning.

Making my career priority #4 has ultimately made me better at my career. No burnout, better focus and creativity, etc.

I honestly wish I did this when I got into the startup space back in 2004 where if you didn't work ~80 hours a week you were a freak.

[__abc]

Thanks.

I would say I've updated this to state that I am out of the house around 8:30 am now spending even more time with my kids.

I still get up around ~5:30 - 6:00 am, but don't bounce out of the house as early.

Also, my kids are sleeping better now that they are older (and sleeping in) so I need to stay home later to spend quality time with them each morning.

[Lawtonfogle]

At the same time, a single man has less options for having a baby than a single woman, thus there is still inequality in the risk.

[CalRobert]

I don't quite follow - you're saying it's easier for a woman to have a child than a man?

From a purely biological perspective this seems backwards to me. A desirable man could conceivably produce many children over the course of nine months, while a woman can have only one pregnancy.

Edit - I do recognize that in many species (humans included) females are more likely to reproduce than males. Given that the sorts of males who found companies are probably relatively high-status individuals, though, I would suggest that the likelihood of either being able to reproduce is pretty decent, and relates to choice rather than mate availability.

[Lawtonfogle]

A man cannot have a child by himself, he requires someone to be a surrogate mother, which is expensive, rare, and in many cases legally and ethically grey. A single woman can (due to certain medical procedures where the needed biological material is already in stock), and while a pregnancy is not cheap, there are no where near the significant legal and moral issues.

Of course either could adopt a child if they really wanted to. So really we need to determine are we comparing extremes to extremes, or are we comparing what actually happens in the population (and at what point do we disagree and thus need to begin supporting our ideas).

[CalRobert]

I see what you mean. I misinterpreted your original comment, thanks for clarifying.

[x0x0]

Bluntly, I assume a woman will be far more involved in childcare than a man. This is backed up by the fact that it's often true, and is a reasonable prior. A male ceo -- and I've worked for several of these -- can / often does have a housewife, and is able to dump virtually all childcare off onto her. Crucially including getting up all night to breastfeed. Women often don't have that and/or don't want that. Not to mention pregnancy can cause severe medical complications (physical injury, post partum depression, etc). I've also seen several ambitious women in my personal life have a baby then decide to transition to a more relaxed career track to focus on the child / have more children.

If I were working for any ceo who decided to have a baby, but particularly a woman, I'd want to know about his or her commitment to the business that I'm investing my time, life, and money into. Being a ceo is generally not a 9-5 M-F job, so explaining how you're going to juggle that with the demands of childcare, breastfeeding should you chose to do so, business travel, business needs, etc is fair game when my personal financial results are entangled with the business outcome.

If you're planning on doing what Marissa did and installing a nanny next to your office, great. If you're planning on taking 4 months off for your personal project, I'm going to re-evaluate my dedication to the business if the ceo isn't more dedicated than me.

NB: I currently work for a female ceo; she and her partner have an au pair but he has damaged his career to provide more childcare than her.

[ksenzee]

> Bluntly, I assume a woman will be far more involved in childcare than a man.

That's a fair assumption across an entire population, but I doubt it applies very well to the population of women looking for funding. They're going to be a lot more likely than the average woman to prioritize business over childcare, and a lot more likely to have a stay-at-home spouse.

[Diamons]

A child needs all the nurturing it can get. Choosing to start a company and raise funding while a human being needs you more than it ever will is selfish as well as morally and ethically wrong.

[x0x0]

Do you feel the same about the men who do it?

Also, historically, lots of kids, particularly of the upper class, were largely raised by nannies and it appears to have worked.

[Diamons]

I think women make better caretakers. A father can stay home and be the caretaker, but I think a mother will have a more positive nurturing influence on the child's life if she is there as much as she can be.

If you can afford a nanny, I wouldn't think you'd be raising funding.

[CalRobert]

It's perfectly fine to disagree, but the courtesy of a counterargument would be appreciated.

[jesstaa]

Expecting anyone to do 15hrs of useful work for a startup in a day is just foolish. There is lots of data to show that most of that 15hrs is just going to be a damaging waste of time. I would never invest in someone that naive.

[jlukanta]

They could if they have live-in relatives helping out, such as the grandparents of the baby.