> My peers in tech who are reluctant to have children often express fear that it will interrupt the arc of the careers they've worked so hard to build.
> That, I think, is the primary tension: not between the family and the state, as Boyle argues, but between individual and collective ambitions. Both the state and the family ask us to make sacrifices for something bigger than ourselves — and this, perhaps, is why they have historically fought each other for mindshare. What tech offers is the opposite: a chance to realize a vision that is entirely one's own. Tech worships individual talent, and it's a unique thrill to live and work among peers who don't shy away from greatness. But it also means that tech has to work harder than other industries to demonstrate that starting a family doesn't require giving up these ambitions.
I'm the breadwinner in my family, and my husband is a SAHD. I have a 2yo and I'm 6 months pregnant with our second. Stereotypically, having a kid made me care less about professional ambitions — but I don't care zero. And as the breadwinner, earning money, ideally more money every couple years or so, is a high priority. God, the pressure to keep up. It's hard to balance with being a present mom.
I live in the SF Bay Area and being able to attend events and network in person has been a huge boon to my career. Being "in the scene" pays off. I can't really do that anymore, not without losing time with my kid, and I'm just not willing to make the sacrifice. Traveling to conferences, etc., is even more off the table. Don't even talk to me about commuting. But I know these lifestyle changes will have repercussions next time I need to find a job.
To secure jobs with the kind of flexibility I require as a mom, I need to be a high performer, an impressive candidate with plenty of connections. Being a mom makes it harder — more expensive, let's say — to be that kind of exceptional worker bee. Oy vey!
> That, I think, is the primary tension: not between the family and the state, as Boyle argues, but between individual and collective ambitions.
I guess I don't see much difference? It would be hard to describe a family as anything other than an individual ambition in this country. The state certainly provides very little support to most people.
This in effect seems like a long-winded way of blaming people for wanting a family in the first place.
Edit: mod-limited so responding here: Sure that part I get, but isn't this also trivially a "family vs state" matter in addition to an "individual vs collective" manner? I don't get what is gained by ignoring the former interpretation.
Starting a family means giving up a lot of personal autonomy for the sake of a collective. A small one, compared to a company or a government, but a collective nonetheless.
Sure. But to characterize your own struggle as "you vs the family" as opposed to "the family vs the state" (edit: or "you vs the state") is... incalculably alien
I am super happy that work is becoming more accepting of, and that you have found success with, family obligations. I, too, have benefitted greatly from generous parental leave policies and pro-family culture and no those things don’t even come close to fully leveling the playing field. Still, I think we often overlook that this generosity must be subsidized by society. And I don’t mean that as a negative… I think that raising the next generation is by and large the most important thing society should be doing. But still, I suspect there will always be rewards for those who dedicate themselves exclusively to their career. And it will always be harder for those that value family to compete.
It makes me wish that we could figure out how to formally subsidize both parents for those first 3-5 years of their children's lives so that everyone could feel empowered to raise their kids in their most formative years without the stress of work and figuring out how to afford childcare. Imagine a society where having children didn't cost anything, where new parents could take on debt that got erased when their kids entered primary school (or some other milestone). At least I’d hope there would be fewer instances of people obsessing over a career because they were told they should “have it all”. I’ve come to understand that my values shift as I move through phases of life and I think socially we could do a better job elevating people who choose to raise families rather than denigrating them for not having a picturesque power career at the same time.
Silicon valley isn’t family-excluding in my experience, it’s just not family oriented either. What makes a disruptive tactical technology squad capable of upsetting incumbents and capturing billions is not usually “a bunch of parents juggling potty training their 2yr old while feeding their newborn”.
I’m always taken aback when people in power denigrate remote and flexible work, as if it’s lazy or incompatible with an organization succeeding. If you want people to have families and lean into them, they need this work arrangement. Remote and flexible work has been shown to be very beneficial to parents and working mothers specifically. Several other countries protect this as a worker right. There’s over $120B in remote first or highly remote compatible enterprises. But you still have the bros, from Silicon Valley to Jamie Dimon in finance, dragging people back in for the performance art. I hope the right people get into positions of power soon, who understand economic success and worker well-being go hand in hand.
It shouldn’t taboo to say “I’m here to do good work, but then I’m going home; my job is not who I am, but merely a means to a reasonable amount of economic and professional success.” We have to enable people do their best work with reasonable accommodations.
Remote and flexible are nice, but not what is needed. What is needed is consistency and not too many hours. You have to be expected to not work or party late because you will be with the family. You have to be expected to work the same first shift schedule - that is the kids are in school or in child care when you are working (child care for young kids is expensive enough that one parent staying home until the kids are school aged looks really good, so support for going back to work after that is useful).
There needs to be one parent with flexibility, but it doesn't matter which. Just so that when a kid is sick at least one parent able to not go into the office. Most people reading this will have a job that can be done okay from home between cleaning vomit up and so it makes sense for us to get that flexibility. However there are a lot of jobs that must be in person (you can't work an assembly line from home)
We don’t have to agree on the remote and flexible part, but I agree with reduced hours and am an aggressive advocate of the 4 day week (8x4 @ 100% pay).
Honestly, I do think there are advantages to in-person work, in terms of team cohesion, serendipity, etc. That said, 1) I don't care, the advantages to me of remote work vastly outweigh the advantages of working on an irl team, 2) many organizations don't set up their irl work environment to effectively maximize the benefits. But I get why employers would prefer it.
There is a huge element of hubris at play. Founders are highly competitive and high achieving people, who imagine their teams to be like leading NFL football teams where there is no room for members who are not absolutely dedicated. Working a 40-hour work week is not compatible with that. As a result perhaps these kind of companies are self selecting, and it's rare to find a leader who is willing to say the equivalent of, "hey, you know, it's OK to be a loser team and not work 100 hour weeks"
A lot of dysfunctional management behavior ive seen can be chalked up to simple projection by either the founder or management.
They want you to feel invested enough to work 60 or 80 hour weeks coz they do. They want you to feel the need to be in the office putting in face time coz thats how they feel.
Not every founder or CEO is egocentric enough to want a bunch of mini-mes orbiting around them but a lot of them are.
This feels to me a little like, "I'm disappointed that person over there is so great at the piano. They practice 10hrs a day. I don't have time. But, I feel I should be considered just as good as them even though I can't put in the effort they are. I should be paid the same. They give concerts 4 nights a week but I have family obligations and can't do that. Venues should figure out a way to let me do once a month and promoters should figure out a way to make me famous even though my output is much less than that other piano player"
Do I think parents should have secure jobs? Yes.
Do I think people that choose family over job should get all the benefits of someone who chooses job over family? No.
It arguably seems inconceivable for it to be any other way. I wanna be good at math but I don't want spend time doing math. I want to be good at ballet but I don't want to spend time doing ballet. I want to be good at my job but I don't want the spend time doing my job.
I'm not saying anyone should be expected to work extra hours or not get family support. I'm only saying that different people have different priorities. Some it's family. What they get out of that is being good at family. For others it's job, what they get out of that is being good at job. Job often include meeting people at industry events outside of 9-5 M-F hours just like being good at anything requires doing more of it than others.
That seems like bland fact, not a judgement to me. I'm sympathetic that a hard choice has to be made.
> My peers in tech who are reluctant to have children often express fear that it will interrupt the arc of the careers they've worked so hard to build.
> That, I think, is the primary tension: not between the family and the state, as Boyle argues, but between individual and collective ambitions. Both the state and the family ask us to make sacrifices for something bigger than ourselves — and this, perhaps, is why they have historically fought each other for mindshare. What tech offers is the opposite: a chance to realize a vision that is entirely one's own. Tech worships individual talent, and it's a unique thrill to live and work among peers who don't shy away from greatness. But it also means that tech has to work harder than other industries to demonstrate that starting a family doesn't require giving up these ambitions.
I'm the breadwinner in my family, and my husband is a SAHD. I have a 2yo and I'm 6 months pregnant with our second. Stereotypically, having a kid made me care less about professional ambitions — but I don't care zero. And as the breadwinner, earning money, ideally more money every couple years or so, is a high priority. God, the pressure to keep up. It's hard to balance with being a present mom.
I live in the SF Bay Area and being able to attend events and network in person has been a huge boon to my career. Being "in the scene" pays off. I can't really do that anymore, not without losing time with my kid, and I'm just not willing to make the sacrifice. Traveling to conferences, etc., is even more off the table. Don't even talk to me about commuting. But I know these lifestyle changes will have repercussions next time I need to find a job.
To secure jobs with the kind of flexibility I require as a mom, I need to be a high performer, an impressive candidate with plenty of connections. Being a mom makes it harder — more expensive, let's say — to be that kind of exceptional worker bee. Oy vey!