And she conveniently left out the cost of childcare for all the days she was gone. Oh, you know, those little $18-20 per hour* minor details. If her partner works fulltime, that could be round-the-clock care.
But yeah, of course a mom can do YC! (If she's rich and has a very, very supportive partner.)
And yeah, I do remember that tweet from Sam she highlighted. And the thing I tweeted back to him, unacknowledged, still stands: daycare in SoMa is almost impossible to find, in some cases has a two-and-a-half year waiting list. Gee, I wonder why about half the women in tech leave mid-career.
* yes, that's the going rate in LA for two children, possibly more if one is a newborn, and/or if you pay your nanny on the books instead of off.
If you don't have the resources to fit a startup into your life (in some combination of time or money - she just happened to have a surplus of money), then maybe you shouldn't be doing a startup? Nobody every said startups/YC is a fit for every single person in every stage of their life.
Yes, that would be the honest thing for VCs to publicly say. "Now look, you'll want to be a guy, unless you're a woman of some means. We're not racist, as we're heavily composed of both whites and asians. Modulo certain Asian and perhaps lesser-European or -US accents. (That excludes others of course, which we hope you consider a feature and not a bug...) As for coming from a family with money and comfort, well we hardly need to list the benefits of that."
So are you implying that no woman has a surplus of time (and that they never do)?
Do you disagree with my assertion that if you want to start a company, you have to have lots of time, and if you don't have that, then you'll have to trade something else for that (like money: for hiring people, paying for flights, etc)?
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you have no time, and no money, don't expect to be able to start a successful startup.
You're missing the point. The qualification you describe in your last sentence excludes the overwhelming majority of people anywhere, but especially in the U.S., and it does so by pure (bad) luck and accident of birth. That is to say, the qualification you note is either a polite way to say, "Non-rich, or affluent, or already-connected need not apply," or an incredibly obtuse equivocation. As a result, for example, the subject of the article that started this thread is not in the same set with people who can accurately be described as "normal."
No, you're missing the point. Success in any field requires time or money (or some combination of both). You want to be a Nobel Prize winning scientist? You're going to need lots of time to become an expert in your field, publish papers, AND run experiments. You want to become an actor? You'll have to spend enormous amounts of time running around doing auditions, trying to find work.
And that's exactly it. The overwhelming majority of the world will never start a startup. Or become a top scientist. And those that do grow up in poverty but start businesses / become academics / other success have time to spend studying/being entrepreneurs, and those that have little time because of other obligations but still manage to do these things have to make enormous time sacrifices.
The world isn't egalitarian, and it's wishful thinking to think it is.
You're right that a very supportive partner is important. Being a mother, you probably have a pretty good system already, but I have some advice from my own experience that may or may not be helpful. I've been a work-at-home dad taking care of our little son.
Save tasks that need complete focus for when your child is napping or sleeping at night. Do the stuff you can easily break from and start up again while your child needs (some but not undivided) attention like being strapped into a highchair for meals/coloring, watching a movie, or playing with toys/ipad/whatever else you allow.
One great advantage we have as parents is being able to quickly recharge by enjoying time teaching/playing/snuggling with our little ones.
Good point. I started working from home as a contractor (and partially as a college instructor)long before my daughter was conceived. I took zero maternity leave and went right back to work when she was born - literally - while still in the hospital (those food trays make decent work stations). There was a very short learning curve on integrating motherhood into work life.
I'm shocked by how hard people make it seem to be a working or entrepreneurial parent. Life is not easy for anyone anyway, but I feel like I'm even more driven and emotionally centered as a mother.
Seriously - could your comment be any more patronising? Just because your experience gave you the impression that this "working or entrepreneurial parent" lark isn't as hard as it's made out, doesn't mean that's the case for everyone.
I went self-employed the week after my 2nd child was born, working from home around my two children. I was profitable in my first month and every month after that until I stopped nearly 2 years later. It was one of the best learning experiences of my working life so far but it was also HARD. Really, really bloody hard.
Patronising? I find it interesting when people take offense to things so easily. How is sharing my personal experience patronising? I didn't say it wasn't hard - or "really, really, bloody hard," but given that there are people mining for coal, risking life and limb in the armed forces, and children digging through trash heaps for a living, I'd venture to say it's not THAT hard.
The first three years of my daughter's life I was also caregiving for a dying parent and working full time. Life is hard. But parents are just as capable - if not more driven and willing to sacrifice - than anyone else and I don't think we should marvel at that (or as in recent news, imply women should freeze their eggs to pursue their careers). People have been having kids and working from the beginning of time. I know women from previous generations who have had ten or more kids and worked full time. Very common in the American South during the 20th century.
Sharing your personal experience isn't patronising. Telling the world you're shocked at how hard people make it out to be based purely on your single personal experience IS patronising.
You're right, of course people have been having kids and working single "the beginning of time", but that doesn't change whether or not they find it hard, does it? Playing "who's got it worse" top trumps only serves to alienate those who ARE struggling at a time when they most need support.
Interesting you should make that comment. Earlier today (while I was on hold with server tech support for those who might question my work ethic - lol), I was commenting on the whole egg freezing perk that hit the news. My suggestion was that providing on-site daycare and other work-life integration perks was preferable to the dream deferred mentality with a 25% success rate (for which the implication is deferred career suicide).
That said, to have children as an entrepreneur, a support system of some kind is critical.
This is exactly the inspiration women (and everyone else who believe they don't fit the YC archetype) need more of. She specifically recommends against directly copying some of her actions. It's admirable how she overcame so many challenges she faced. Buckling down and getting shit done when you miss your family isn't easy, and she is a great role model for those who will have to do that. Hopefully her story will inspire more outliers to give it a shot despite their doubts.
But yeah, of course a mom can do YC! (If she's rich and has a very, very supportive partner.)
And yeah, I do remember that tweet from Sam she highlighted. And the thing I tweeted back to him, unacknowledged, still stands: daycare in SoMa is almost impossible to find, in some cases has a two-and-a-half year waiting list. Gee, I wonder why about half the women in tech leave mid-career.
* yes, that's the going rate in LA for two children, possibly more if one is a newborn, and/or if you pay your nanny on the books instead of off.