> Inspecting into his marriage feels dirty and indeed, tabloid. But if we want to get the full picture of entrepreneurial life, we can't ignore personal life.
On the contrary, you can, and you should. The era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over, and good riddance. People shouldn't be pressured into a family lifestyle if they don't feel a motivation in that direction.
Can you tell me the names of Einstein's children? No? How about two-time Nobel Prizewinner Marie Curie? Ironically, on Curie's Wikipedia page, her children (two) are only mentioned in passing -- they just weren't important enough to include in her list of noteworthy lifetime accomplishments:
And if we accept the idea that children are an option, not a requirement, guess who benefits the most? Children, of course. The children who are brought into existence without social pressure can feel assurance they they were planned, not mistakes.
> People shouldn't be pressured into a family lifestyle if they don't feel a motivation in that direction.
Agreed. But what does that have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that Elon Musk only got married/had children because he was pressured into it? And now that he is divorced and apparently doesn't see his kids much (as the article states, I really have no idea), well, all the better for him, because maybe he never wanted any of that to begin with?
If you don't want to get married, or if you don't want to have children, that's awesome. You'll be free to devote more of your time to your work or hobbies. If that's what you find most fulfilling in life, then that's what you should do.
Once you do have children, and to a lesser extent (in today's world, at least) get married, you've now made promises that you ought to keep. I'm not sure where your "children are an option, not a requirement" tangent is coming from -- surely not from anything I read in the article or comments here. Unless, again, you're arguing that somehow Elon Musk was required to have children?!
> Are you saying that Elon Musk only got married/had children because he was pressured into it?
I have no idea. My only point is that's a common problem in modern times. It's unfortunate, it disproportionately hurts women in their careers, and it is slowly changing for the better.
> Unless, again, you're arguing that somehow Elon Musk was required to have children?!
To the young, something may seem a requirement that to a more mature person is obviously just a choice. And intelligence seems not to play a large part in that age distinction.
I wouldn't dispute that Musk will go down in history as an entrepreneur and not a father. That's not the point.
The point is that when you show Musk as an inspiration for entrepreneurship, you should look at his whole life- because being a serial entrepreneur absolutely has an effect on your personal life.
The title of the story is "Why is there only one Elon Musk"- there are many, connected answers. His personal life is part of that. Just because it doesn't define him doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
> The point is that when you show Musk as an inspiration for entrepreneurship, you should look at his whole life- because being a serial entrepreneur absolutely has an effect on your personal life.
Think about what you're saying. I hope by now you are aware that women rightly object to this kind of mixing of the personal and professional, and that to refer to a woman's personal and relationship choices in connection with her professional standing is an obvious and much-lamented kind of sexism.
> Just because it doesn't define him doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
Do avoid saying this about a woman, about, say, Marissa Mayer, present CEO at Yahoo. Her personal and professional lives are rightly evaluated separately.
When you listen to Musk's interviews, what strikes you is the degree to which his accomplishments and his value system are strongly connected -- that what he accomplishes has everything to do with his approach to problem solving, and nothing to do with his relationships.
Do avoid saying this about a woman, about, say, Marissa Mayer, present CEO at Yahoo. Her personal and professional lives are rightly evaluated separately.
They aren't, though. When she announced the "no remote working rule" she was criticised for having babycare facilities next to her office, allowing her to care for her child at work. And it was a valid criticism- she was subjecting her employees to conditions that she insulated herself from.
If you are evaluating a person as a whole (which the article is), you can't ignore their personal life without also losing a lot of important context.
Think about what you're saying. I hope by now you are aware that women rightly object to this kind of mixing of the personal and professional
I think they object to being unfairly singled out on that basis, not that people shouldn't ever take someone's personal life into account in general.
>> he era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over, and good riddance.
> No it's not. Those things help to define a person.
When you try to refute someone's position, it's expected that you will offer a counterargument, not a different topic. Yes, relationships help define a person. No, that doesn't mean the era hasn't ended in which one's relationships are central to one's identity.
Sure, I'll bite.
You argue that family is no longer important (or, 'optional', in your words) because Wikipedia does not elevate the status of, or obsess over the details of the family of a notable person in the same fashion. This is a ridiculous argument [1]. Who cares what Wikipedia thinks? Who cares what google thinks? Who cares what society thinks? A relationship is a very personal connection between two people. Perhaps it doesn't translate well to Wikipedia, but it's absurd to assert that they're not worth having just because they're not preserved for all eternity.
You are making the same fallacy that your parent post accused another poster of making, you're failing to address to argument at hand.
Eras are defined by society at large (as much retroactively defined by future generations as defined by the present). Disregarding what society thinks refutes your entire argument. Two people caring about a certain thing is an anecdote, not an era.
Note that he never said "relationships are not worth having", merely that "The era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over".
Your GGP's post's conclusion holds, even if what you are saying is true.
On the contrary, you can, and you should. The era when a man or a woman is defined by his relationships and family is over, and good riddance. People shouldn't be pressured into a family lifestyle if they don't feel a motivation in that direction.
Can you tell me the names of Einstein's children? No? How about two-time Nobel Prizewinner Marie Curie? Ironically, on Curie's Wikipedia page, her children (two) are only mentioned in passing -- they just weren't important enough to include in her list of noteworthy lifetime accomplishments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
And if we accept the idea that children are an option, not a requirement, guess who benefits the most? Children, of course. The children who are brought into existence without social pressure can feel assurance they they were planned, not mistakes.