[cdmcmahon]

So similarly, potential investors should screen all men to make sure they and their partner aren't expecting children anytime soon? This would maybe be a defensible* position if it were applied equally, but it's not.

*But actually it's not really. In today's world, with varying family types and options for care, it is possible for people to have children and give their all to a company. For many (most?) people that isn't the best option, but it is possible.

[CalRobert]

Not to mention that one has to wonder what the point of all this is if we're going to deny people one of the most basic aspects of the human experience. I'm all for family planning, smaller families for the sake of the planet, etc. but c'mon, are we going to tell ambitious people they can pretty much _never_ have kids? Aren't these the sort of folks we should be hoping _do_ make copies of themselves?

[grahamburger]

No one suggested 'pretty much never.' Early stage fund raising is often the most stressful and time consuming part of starting a business, and pregnancy/first few months is usually the most stressful/time consuming part of having a child. Both of those are usually less than 1 year commitments. It's fair to suggest that it's not a great idea to take them on at the same time (for either parent.)

[wolfgke]

Who says that you have to found a company and found a family at the same time? Why can't one do that at different times (e.g. some years between) when these goals won't be in hard conflict?

[CalRobert]

Nobody says you have to. I am proposing an alternate value system that says we don't need to claim these things are always absolutely mutually exclusive. I think it depends on the company, the parent(s), the child, the culture, the legal framework around parenting and work, and a zillion other things. Maybe you live with your extended family and it's understood that a grandparent will take on a lot of the work. Or an uncle. Or maybe your government provides extensive day care and education options. Or maybe you have an office where a child can be present.

[grahamburger]

From the perspective of the VC, yeah, it seems unfair to screen based on that - but it also seems unfair to screen based on looks or personality or accent or whatever, all of which is (probably?) happening.

From the perspective of the founder - obviously that's a personal choice. I personally wouldn't be looking to start a new venture and actively seek funding if my wife was pregnant, more than likely waiting it out for a few months won't hurt anything. Even if you are in a situation like you described, being pregnant takes up a lot of time that can't be outsourced, like pre-natal doctor visits. Also in both of my wife's pregnancies so far she's had to be rushed to the hospital during the pregnancy and spend a few days there, and on the last one she had to have a fairly intense emergency surgery. Honestly in my anecdotal experience those situations aren't uncommon.

On the other hand if I was already actively working on a startup before the pregnancy and needed to close another round before the baby came, I'd do my best make that happen.

[cdmcmahon]

Unconscious (and conscious) biases on looks and personality and looks certainly do happen but the specific issue with pregnancy is gendered discrimination[1]. And while I agree that personally I wouldn't want to start a company while with a partner who is expecting, I don't think our systems that enable founding a company should enforce that, especially when there's no indication that such a standard is applied equally between genders. I also believe that there are significantly better indicators of someone's ability/willingness to put in the extraordinary amount of time to build a company than whether they have/will have children because I and many others have worked under great people who build companies and have families.

[1]Actually, there's a strong argument that biases based on appearance produce gendered discrimination, but that's another issue.

[grahamburger]

> I and many others have worked under great people who build companies and have families.

This is the part that I don't get and that I feel like a lot of comments on this thread are talking past each on. This isn't about just having a family (right?) it's about actively fund-raising while expecting a child. I would not only agree with that last point you made but go so far as so say that I strongly prefer to work for people who have children / families (or at least a respect for the institution of family) as I believe that makes them more empathetic and relate-able. That still doesn't mean it's a great idea to start a startup and raise funds while also expecting a child.

EDIT: FWIW I also don't think that our system should enforce this, whether it's a good idea or not, and yes it's absolutely unfair that it's gendered - or at least it's unfair that an expectant father is more able to hide the fact that he's expecting than a mother. I'm not sure that it's reasonable to expect a VC to ignore that once they know, though.