Slashdot Mirror
6 Female Founders Accuse VC Justin Caldbeck of Making Unwanted Advances (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Yesterday The Information reported on allegations made by half a dozen women working in the tech industry who say they have faced unwanted and inappropriate advances from Silicon Valley venture capitalist, Justin Caldbeck, co-founder and managing partner of Binary Capital. The women include Niniane Wang, co-creator of Google Desktop and a prior CTO of Minted; and Susan Ho and Leiti Hsu, co-founders of Journy, a travel planning and booking service. The Information also talked to three other women who said Caldbeck made inappropriate advances to them. It says these women did not want their names disclosed for fear of retaliation from the VC -- and because of wider concerns they might suffer a backlash from men in the industry who don't see inappropriate advances as a problem. Among the allegations made to The Information are that Caldbeck sent explicit text messages to women; that Caldbeck sent messages in the middle of the night suggesting meeting up; that Caldbeck suggested going to a hotel bedroom during a meeting; that Caldbeck made a proposition about having an open relationship; and that Caldbeck grabbed a woman's thigh under the table of a bar during a meeting. Several of the women reported finding Caldbeck's advances so awkward they gave up on continued dealings with him. In Caldbeck's initial statement, he "strongly" denied the allegations and claimed: "I have always enjoyed respectful relationships with female founders, business partners, and investors." However, in response to The Information's story, his tone changed significantly: "Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There's no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it." Caldbeck has since released a full statement to Axios, where he says he "will be taking an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital..."
This news is:
Probably largely true,
probably what he did isn't illegal (just awkward),
and he's probably already been punished by his company.
tbh there's no reason to publicize anyone in this story, the situation's been handled. Let people move on with their lives.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If there's something to this, then they should report this to the cops instead of broadcasting massive smear campaigns.
Behavior can be very inappropriate without being illegal. Context matters. My wife has send me explicit text messages late at night. That doesn't mean it is appropriate for me to do the same to a female subordinate. In neither case is it illegal, nor should it be.
If there's something to this, then they should report this to the cops instead of broadcasting massive smear campaigns.
Behavior can be very inappropriate without being illegal. Context matters. My wife has send me explicit text messages late at night. That doesn't mean it is appropriate for me to do the same to a female subordinate. In neither case is it illegal, nor should it be.
Actually, it is illegal to do so to a subordinate. It's called abusing a position of authority. Courts award money for that.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You may have a point.... in other less advanced cultures, the leader of the country may not condone grabbing women by the pussy.
There's no need for proof. He has admitted it. Read the story again - it's been updated. So much for your racist powers of deduction.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
We're not talking about rape. Nobody's accused him of that.
What he's accused of is making advances towards women over whom he exercised some form of power. If you don't understand why that's wrong, then you're part of the problem.
Given the fact he's already resigned his position and published a not-quite-apology/not-quite-admission, it would seem that *the allegations that were actually made* have some basis in fact.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Smear campaign? How can it be a smear campaign when he's since copped to it all and apologized? The only people being smeared here are the women. Read the comments - it's amazing (but not surprising) how many comments are attacking the women for (1) complaining in the first place, (2) assuming that it's probably not true so there must be other motives, (3) blame the women for "misunderstanding", (4) "it's not complaint-worthy".
And yet you all claim there's no discrimination based on sex (or at least no "undeserved" discrimination, or no "serious enough" discrimination).
Here, let me put it in language you can understand. Lacking self-awareness you are. Into the mirror look you must. Regret this one day you will.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He didn't abuse his position as employer because he's not their employer.
Way to miss the point.
The women were all in contact with the VC in a professional capacity. Some as founders hoping to secure funding from his fund for their businesses.
"Employer-employee" is not the only sort of unequal-power relationship to be found in a "work" or "business" setting.
And if he doesn't want women complaining about his poor conduct in a business setting, perhaps he shouldn't conduct himself thus in a business setting.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's a slightly nicer way of saying "Extreme reluctance to take 'No' for an answer" or "Inability to distinguish between an office and a singles bar".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Considering today's politics, all men are considered de-facto guilty until proven innocent. I don't know if caldbeck truly stepped out of line, but the current situation reenforces the need for evidence based justice instead of the (social) media witchhunts we have now. I hope your wife doesn't ever get mad enough to use those messages against you in divorce court as evidence of 'unwanted advances.' Marriage offers no more immunity to this than any other context. Thanks to pervasive logging of communications, messages like those have a way of cropping up years later, only to be taken out of context by her (and her lawyer). At the time it might've been fine, but women are human and can and do lie after the fact if it'll benefit them.
As far as context, legality, and appropriateness go, when is it ok to make a pass, these days, and who are the referees? Based on what I've seen, work and school (esp college, but, now, probably hs too) are now no-go zones. Doesn't leave much left. Feminist propaganda lumps reasonable advances in with the unreasonable, which effectively trains women to think any advance by men they don't like is inappropriate. Insane.
But "unwanted advances" is such a weasel term. There is nothing wrong with making an advance; hell, it's necessary for the survival of the race. Every relationship I've ever been in has been started with an advance on my part. Unwanted? How can you tell until afterward? That's the whole POINT.
Of course, persistent advances after the target has made it clear that she isn't interested is unprofessional, and can even be illegal. Depends on the facts of the case, which aren't known yet.
It still isn't something you go to cops for because it's not criminal. And if they retained lawyers to sue him, you'd be accusing them of just doing this for the payoff.
3 comments, all critical of the women for complaining.
Those sounds mostly like anons but you are right that there are some men on slashdot that seem to be uncomfortable with the prospect of working side-by-side with women. I condemn them and their old world view.
And you know why? Because increasingly, if I meet a jerkass man in my workplace then there's so much he can do, AND I can fight back, but if I meet a jerkass woman in a workplace then all she has to do is wrongly accuse me of sexual harassment, and presumption of innocence goes right out of the window, as does any need to provide any actual evidence, even if I avoid being thrown right into jail I'll be fired and unhireable. And possibly lynched by an angry SJW mob if she generates enough attention. Just for not tiptoeing the line for some alpha bitch.
Don't know if he stepped out of line? Did you even read the summary, much less follow the links? He apologized in a way that strongly hints that the allegations were true.
Such as these sentences from his statement, "I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. ... The gap of influence between male venture capitalists and female entrepreneurs is frightening and I hate that my behavior played a role in perpetrating a gender-hostile environment. It is outrageous and unethical for any person to leverage a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, it is clear to me now that that is exactly what I've done."
Now if he's serious about this and not just placating HR, then I give him far greater credit than to the bros who instantly jump to his defence.
Senator? Mr President? Your Honor? I give up, can I have a hint?
There's also highly inappropriate and shocking unwanted advances. Ie, you go visit your doctor, tell him your symptoms, then get propositioned. Seriously messed up for sure. Compare to this case, it's go see the VC guy with all the money, present your business case, ask for the money, get propositioned by the guy who can make or break your business plans. Also messed up? I would think so.
What Caldbeck did is probably not illegal. However, it is an abuse of power by which he is implicitly screwing over his employer, using their power and money as leverage to get pussy when he was expected to be lusting for lucre on their behalf 17 hours a day 7 days a week. He resigned because it dawned on him that Binary Capital would learn enough truth to decide he was expendable.
Advances are always unwanted. ... go on.
Advances are made in order to know whether the other party is available and willing to
Maybe you meant "unexpected", "unsolicited" or "unpleasant".
But not "unwanted"!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
I see you're doing the classic project. These feminist-themed topics are always very predictable like a broken AI. Was the a man involved? He was bad and wrong.
This topic really is playing out like a broken record and you're part of it.
1. Woman accuses someone of something.
2. Peanut gallery: lies! witch hunt! Why can't I hit on my co workers! I might get fired! Why are women so awful! It's not true! The poor guy was just being nice! It's all lies!
3. Guy admits it.
4. It's all lies! etc etc.
There is a strong contingent here that will never believe accounts of harassment of women no matter how strong the evidence. That same contingent will also bang on about how there is no sexism in IT. I guess that makes sense: if you refuse to believe any evidence of it, then to your eye there is none.
This is kind of annoying to everyone else.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's even worse with the new generation; they think people coming to talk to them in real life is crazy, and that they should use Tinder instead.
Don't know if he stepped out of line? Did you even read the summary, much less follow the links? He apologized in a way that strongly hints that the allegations were true.
There is a pretty good chance that he did what they accused him of doing.
But have men not learned? Don't look, don't touch, and for gawd's sake, don't socialize. A few beers, and you might be feeling warm and fuzzy, but remember, if she's had a few as well, she can't give legal consent, and if she isn't interested in you, any romantic overtures you make can be legal sexual assault.
It does seem bizarre, but it is where we are at.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Citations needed, thanks. Especially about Trump being racist, I dare you to find it.
Ask the judges who have ruled that his ban on Muslims discriminated by race.. Ask the judge he accused of being biased because he was a Mexican. Ask the justice department, which twice took his company to court for racial discrimination - Trump countersued for slander, then entered into a consent not to do it again - and did it again. here's a quote from the first hit from "donald trump racist"
In May, Trump implied that Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over a class action suit against the for-profit Trump University, could not fairly hear the case because of his Mexican heritage.
“He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.”
Curiel, it should be noted, is an American citizen who was born in Indiana. As a prosecutor in the late 1990s, he went after Mexican drug cartels, making him a target for assassination by a Tijuana drug lord.
Even members of Trump’s own party slammed the racist remarks.
“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, though he clarified that he still endorsed Trump
The comments against Curiel didn’t sit well with the American public either. According to a YouGov poll released in June, 51 percent of those surveyed agreed that Trump’s comments were not only wrong, but also racist. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said Trump was wrong to complain against the judge, while just 20 percent said he was right to do so.
Racist, sexist bigot. That's Donald Trump.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Working on a Saturday, but here goes...
1) unless witnesses come forward, there was no one else there except the guy and the lady.
2) at that point, we're stuck EXCEPT for...
3) The woman says she feels the advances were inappropriate
4) the guy says he feels they might have been, but at first clearly denied the whole thing (typical, people act defensive when acccused)
so, we're stuck. There is no way to go back and measure feels with current technology. There's no evidence, and this is where the system breaks down.
It can't help either men or women at this point, because we don't have technology advanced enough to prove emotions or a time machine to go back and see actions/hear words, short of ubiquitous surveillance. All we have are propensities and statements and predictions.
In the future, I predict what could revolutionize the justice system is showing what people are feeling and at what time. If the woman was feeling aroused and scared (because women are more complex emotionally, yes it's a biological fact) perhaps there's evidence for a trial. If she was feeling happy and aroused (testosterone and serotonin, maybe?) then there's a lot less to back up her statement.
All this arguing about emotions and feels and he-said-she-said-he-raped-she-abused stuff is driving humanity bonkers. There has to be a solution out there somewhere...
-
The guy has admitted it, there are multiple people making similar accusations and they are willing to publicly stand by them. I suspect that even if the guy was convicted of an actual crime or lost a lawsuit, you would just assume that the system is rigged against men and he is probably innocent.
In other words, if the accusation comes from a women, you simply refuse to believe it. We have a word for that kind of attitude. I wonder if you know what it is.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
M: Hey, I find you attractive and would like to get to know you better. Would you like to go on a date sometime?
W: No, no thank you. I'm not interested.
M: OK .....time passes....
W: I was threatened and intimidated by his "Power" boo-hoo. Somebody pwotect me fwum da big bad man!
It's not bizarre. It's the work place, not a pick up bar. If someone doesn't like your advances at a pick up bar then they can go somewhere else. But at work they're stuck, it is difficult to leave and get a different job.
If something does pick up at work and some romance blooms, it's because of mutual attraction and both people sending off signals. I think a lot of guys don't read the signals correctly, they see a woman talking to them and they assume there's a chance because no one ever talks to them outside of work.
It's not bizarre. It's the work place, not a pick up bar.
Remember some/many of those situations in this instance were also social, so given the cold ware between the sexes here, and my admonition here that men simply avoid any unnecessary interactions with women in the workplace, we're not so far apart.
That I think it is bizarre is my opinion. In what was a more normal world before it was "fixed", normal men and women in a work environment might engage in flirty talk with no intention of engaging in sex. The creeps? Oh yeah, they were there, and all of the ladies and men knew who they were.
Now? All men are considered creeps. Now a male/female hug in the workplace is considered a sexual advance (on the part of the male) I've had a some lady co-workers who are "touchy" - when they talk to you, they like to touch you. The type of touch is part of the communication. Part of the reading. As an example, a co-worker who was touchy would do a single hand on my arm just as a regular communication, lean into to me if she was sharing something confidential, use a two hand on the arm if I really needed to pay attention because she was upset about something, and some times a full on hug if she was in a good mood. I'm not personally a touchy person, in fact I had to get used to her interaction method. But I never interpreted it as her wanting anything other than a hug.
But the idea that I might do the reverse is completely unthinkable.
And over time, and as the third wave feminists entrenched their privilege, I avoided touchy ladies. I was friends with this woman before men were all evil, so with her it wasn't a big deal. Women I didn't know already were LWA.
If something does pick up at work and some romance blooms, it's because of mutual attraction and both people sending off signals.
Not a wise move at all, and I would advise strongly against that. If the relationship sours, it might intrude into the workplace, and is a minefield for both the woman and the man. If the relationship thrives, there is a good chance of the office grapevine getting gossipy about promotions, moves and the like. Danger, Will Robinson!!
I think a lot of guys don't read the signals correctly, they see a woman talking to them and they assume there's a chance because no one ever talks to them outside of work.
You're exactly right on that. There are a fair number of men who fall in love with any woman who is nice to them. It is terribly sad. In most cases, it's more annoying than anything else. Occasionally a friend or relative has to be called in to disabuse the guy. But most of these shy guys will just suffer in silence.
And I think that the workplace cold war and gender wars are approaching this the wrong way. Women are trained from an early age that everyone wants to lay them, and approach everything with the idea that the man who says hello is actually trying to get them in bed, and the shy guy thinks that any woman who smiles at him wants to spend their lives together. I think its the two sides of a coin, one revulsion, and the other attraction. And the rest of normal men just figure the situation is not a good one, and rationally disengage. And the jerks and creeps? They haven't changed a thing.
This sort of relationship between the sexes isn't healthy in the least.
But bizarre? All I can say is that normal guys who believe that any sort of relationship with female co-workers is best avoided with great prejudice is serving what the ladies say they want. And well, you can have your way, and you win. But if they think that thinking the weird situation in what is slowly becoming apartheid of the sexes is not allowed, well, sorry - you can't have every single thing you want.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Look, I believe that Caldbeck and Kalanick acted like jerks because I believe men and women should not have sex outside of marriage
I'm always fascinated by the general unwillingness of most people to generalise. This kind of puritanical busybody attitude of poking one's nose into other's business is precisely what leads people to be homophobic too. And yet here you are being guilty of precisely the same thing.
Being married doesn't make people behave: any cursory glance at history will tell you that marriage didn't stop affairs in the slightest, nor did the societal stigma against sex outside of marriage stop it happening.
Likewise, not being married does not make one unfaithful.
On the other hand, from a conservative point of view, asking people out for coffee or dinner is fine because there are no expectations of sex associated with such invitations.
So why is it always the "happily" married conservatives who get caught with a rent boy in an airport bathrooms then? It's quite astonishing you seem to believe that conservatives are less likely to have affairs.
But no, there is no first order set of rules for "X" is always OK or "X" is always not OK. Context is the important thing. If you can't understand that, then I suggest you never proposition anyone until you can figure out why context is important and how to judge it, because if you can't judge that, you'll find yourself in whole heaps of trouble and not even know why.
Of course, men and women do engage in premarital sex, but it's simply not something that conservatives are concerned with protecting or analyzing, and for either men or women the remedy is simple: you decline.
Well that's why conservatives are stupid. If you refuse to analyse something then it's impossible to make reasoned decisions about it.
The progressive view, on the other hand, is evidently that men and women can have sex pretty much whenever both sides agree to it and that this is something that society needs to be concerned with protecting.
If you mean that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like in the privacy of their homes and that the government shouldn't poke it's nose in, then yes, that is what we think. Big brother has no place in my bedroom, thankyou very much!
Heck, society is even subsidizing it by paying for abortions, child services, and STD treatments.
None of those things ever happened before liberals existed. True story!
Obviously, progressives also have no problem with people in authority propositioning subordinates for sex
aaaaand you're back to the "making shit up" part of the argument.
Yet, under some ill-defined set of circumstances,
It's the context that makes it. The thing is in the real world with real humans context is important. Take for example punching someone in the face. If it's a copper, you'd get shot, or arrested or something. In a boxing match, you'd get points for it. See? Context makes the difference.
Context does not mean "ill defined", it means that it's not defined by excessively simplistic rules.
but on what principled basis do you object to what Caldbeck and Kalanick did?
It seems to be no different from what a lot of other progressives have done without being called "jerks" by you.
Abuse of position of power in Caldbeck's case.
You are criticizing me for not publicly posting comments on slashdot admonishing Bill Clinton fully years before I even knew slashdot existed and got myself an account. So, yes, I made no public comments during Bill Clinton's time in office.
SJW n. One who posts facts.