From the article:
"When I got to the bottom of [Paul Graham's] post I found the following footnote that read:
[2] One advantage startups have over established companies is that there are no discrimination laws about starting businesses. For example, I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children, or was likely to have them soon. [emphasis added] But you’re not allowed to ask prospective employees if they plan to have kids soon…Whereas when you’re starting a company, you can discriminate on any basis you want about who you start it with.
While its common knowledge among career savvy women that we often have to prove that we are “in it to win it,” so to speak, I was surprised to see this advice given so matter-of-factly without noting any further mitigating factors a “reluctant” founder might consider when contemplating starting a company with a woman who was, or desired to become, a mother."
The article goes on to explain this is a false choice.
Link to the article: http://blogs.forbes.com/85broads/2011/05/16/the-false-choice...
Link to the HN thread on the article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2554807
"Does he allow women founders to come to office hours? Although given his admittance that he prefers not to invest in women of child-bearing age, perhaps none will bother."
https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com...