I think maybe a wider perspective is needed on this topic. Instead of the assumption that women should have more resources for fertility as a founder of a company or trying to run/work at a startup, let's examine why that assumption exists, which is men in a similar position.
Male founders also face hardships in rearing children when working demanding jobs, but less so than women, partly because of the luck of the genetic draw, and partly because as a culture we are more lenient and have less expectations of fathers. The good parent will have problems no matter their gender (but harder for women obviously, who carry the child to term), but men can get away with being more absent and less involved without as much judgement.
What if instead of taking at face value that people in these positions should have resources allocated to make it easier to raise children, we instead focus on their choices. They made a choice to go into a high risk venture for the possible payout of money and/or more control over their future. Worded in a more harsh way, what's being asked is "Why aren't more resources and attention focused on me while I attempt to play the lotto and become a millionaire, or work my high paying job?" Perhaps the answer to this should instead of providing additional support to women and men in child rearing in an industry that pays famously well and is getting less and less tethered to locale by the day, we instead decide to stigmatize fathers that focus more on their career than their children?
That's not to say I think we shouldn't as a society focus on making child rearing easier, especially for those without as many resources, but I'm not sure focusing on those that have chosen to make the trade-off already to pursue a demanding and risky career for the chance at a large payout is what we should be doing. If they benefit somewhat from societal changes, that's great, but I'm not really going to shed a tear over founders complaining how hard it is with a pregnancy or rearing a small child to raising funding for the next round, whether they be male or female. They've made very specific life choices to put themselves into that position, and I don't think it's out of bounds to say maybe taking the hard and risky path doesn't always pay off.
Note: This is probably way more harsh than I intend it to be, and it's not exactly a correct representation of my feelings on this, but I think it is a perspective worth considering. That is, to a small degree I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Male founders also face hardships in rearing children when working demanding jobs, but less so than women, partly because of the luck of the genetic draw, and partly because as a culture we are more lenient and have less expectations of fathers. The good parent will have problems no matter their gender (but harder for women obviously, who carry the child to term), but men can get away with being more absent and less involved without as much judgement.
What if instead of taking at face value that people in these positions should have resources allocated to make it easier to raise children, we instead focus on their choices. They made a choice to go into a high risk venture for the possible payout of money and/or more control over their future. Worded in a more harsh way, what's being asked is "Why aren't more resources and attention focused on me while I attempt to play the lotto and become a millionaire, or work my high paying job?" Perhaps the answer to this should instead of providing additional support to women and men in child rearing in an industry that pays famously well and is getting less and less tethered to locale by the day, we instead decide to stigmatize fathers that focus more on their career than their children?
That's not to say I think we shouldn't as a society focus on making child rearing easier, especially for those without as many resources, but I'm not sure focusing on those that have chosen to make the trade-off already to pursue a demanding and risky career for the chance at a large payout is what we should be doing. If they benefit somewhat from societal changes, that's great, but I'm not really going to shed a tear over founders complaining how hard it is with a pregnancy or rearing a small child to raising funding for the next round, whether they be male or female. They've made very specific life choices to put themselves into that position, and I don't think it's out of bounds to say maybe taking the hard and risky path doesn't always pay off.
Note: This is probably way more harsh than I intend it to be, and it's not exactly a correct representation of my feelings on this, but I think it is a perspective worth considering. That is, to a small degree I'm playing devil's advocate here.