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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.