24 Women Allege Sexual Harassment By Investors, and Another VC Gets Demoted (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Friday technology investor Dave McClure tweeted a link to a statement from the new CEO of the start-up incubator he co-founded which announces his demotion after engaging in "inappropriate interactions with women in the tech community." The new CEO of 500 Startups says "I sincerely apologize for the choices he made and the pain and stress they've caused people. But apologies aren't enough without meaningful actions and change. Because of this, we made the decision a few months ago to change the leadership structure at 500." Meanwhile, McClure will attend counseling "to work on changing his perspectives and preventing his previous unacceptable behavior... As much as we want to be part of the solution, we clearly have also been part of the problem."

The same day more than two dozen female entrepreneurs told the New York Times about incidents of sexual harassment in the start-up industry, "often providing corroborating messages and emails." Several women told the Times they were warned that saying anything might lead to ostracism. Chris Sacca -- whose firm invested in Twitter, Uber, Instagram, Twilio, and Kickstarter -- told the Times he was grateful for the courage of the female entrepreneur who told the Times how he'd propositioned her, and Sacca also wrote in a post on Medium, "I've learned that it's often the less obvious, yet pervasive and questionable, everyday behaviors of men in our industry that collectively make it inhospitable for women... It's the unrelenting, day-to-day culture of dismissiveness that creates a continually bleak environment for women and other underrepresented groups." The article also notes that Justin Caldbeck -- accused by six different founders of making unwanted advances -- worked at three different VC firms over the last seven years. The Times also cites a 2014 admission by investor Pavel Curda that he sent two women text messages asking for sex after a networking event, adding "The new accounts underscore how sexual harassment in the tech start-up ecosystem goes beyond one firm and is pervasive and ingrained."

Comments

It's like men want money for one thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as if all that money and power was about trying to impress and bed women!

Re: It's like men want money for one thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest to god, if it wasn't for women, we wouldn't be motivated to do anything. You women really think we care about muscle cars? Clothes? Religion? Environment? Social networking? Funny how the things we tend to have in common are often either the most expensive or pop-culturally idealistic. It's not a coincidence or a match made in heaven. And guess what? If any guy could play video games and get blowjobs all day, we'd would have no reason to work towards anything. So, call flirting "sexual harassment" all you want, but the day it stops, so have we. I hate to break it to you all, but you're half of the species will never be fully satisfied or feel completely safe. You never have been and you never will be. Our technology is evolving faster than our ethics and because of the instant gratification, you feel like things you want should of been here yesterday. I can't tell you how many old ladies I've talk to about Feminism just to find out how ridiculous all of them think it is and they were the ones that could have actually used it back in their day. You don't need it; what you do need is to stop dressing like porn characters only to freak out when our human nature reacts. Be happy you have guys flirting with you; a lot of women don't have that problem, but some pretend to as to not look undesirable. How long have self-actualizing humans been around? Hmmmmm....a very long time. So in short, good luck. Maybe we will get another chance at a "Hillary" next election, but until you guys can figure out a way to want to be treated "equally" but not be so damn annoying about it, it's not going to happen; you're only gnawing at ankles and showing that you're incapable of separating logic from emotion and every failed attempt you make helps desensitize those that could use an alternate paradigm.

Re: It's like men want money for one thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

VCs make me nervous about SV culture.

Re: It's like men want money for one thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

... So, yeah, about that "unrelenting day-to-day culture of dismissiveness"...

Re:Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't know much about the cultures of the countries that H1B workers come from do you?

Profit is a tax on productivity

[PopeRatzo]

Remember, a "VC" is someone who wants to get rich off of someone else's work and creativity. Parasites. They produce nothing but exploitation. It should not surprise that they seek to exploit everyone they meet.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

VCs are just like banks: they have money which other people need for stuff. So they loan it out, albeit with a much higher interest rate. Not all of them are terrible, but many of them are.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[CrimsonAvenger]

Remember, a "VC" is someone who wants to get rich off of someone else's work and creativity. Parasites. They produce nothing but exploitation. It should not surprise that they seek to exploit everyone they meet.

Just curious, where, exactly, is someone supposed to get money for developingn their new idea? The Tooth Fairy?

A VC may be a loan shark (costs more than money from a bank, but a bank isn't going to give you $10M backed up by your title to a small suburban home), but until we get a Government Program that's required to give people with new ideas Free Money (note that such an organization could NEVER be abused), they're the choice.

Unless you're born rich, of course. Dispense with VC's, and you pretty much guarantee that neat new startups will only be done by rich people....

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[phantomfive]

Instead of being a VC, they should have run for president. Then they wouldn't have these problems.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[El Cubano]

It should not surprise that they seek to exploit everyone they meet.

I think the best way to sum it up is: double standards, we haz them.

Certainly the /. community is more aware of this sort of thing in the VC/entrepreneurship community than the general population. But this sort of thing--people in positions of power taking advantage of those over whom they wield influence--is nothing new. Perhaps there are some industries, occupations, etc. where this is more likely to occur, but it still happens all over the place.

I was reading about a study that was carried out comparing the perceptions of, reactions to, and consequences of male educators sexually exploiting students versus female educators sexually exploiting students. The summary was that people generally tend to perceive it like this: male educator -> evil, female student -> victim; female educator -> troubled, perhaps unhappy with home life/relationship; male student -> "way to score, champ!" This extends to news coverage, trial testimony, even conviction rates and sentencing (men are far more likely to be convicted than women for the same offense and once convicted men serve considerably longer prison sentences).

The double standards in society extend even further. For example, in a divorce the default for custody of children tends to be custody to the mother and visitation for the father. Getting joint custody or full custody to the father usually involved proving some unfitness to parent on the part of the mother. This is starting to change to a more equitable arrangement, but it is a very slow going change. Another good is example is the way that people naturally react very differently to men and women in certain roles, like daycare worker or kindergarten teacher: female daycare/kindergarten teacher -> no issues; male daycare/kindergarten teacher -> alarm bells go off for many parents (he might be a child molester, after all).

I'll bet that there is even an element of social conditioning at play in the whole VC sexual harassment thing. Men are expected to to misbehave. Going back to the different of male/female teachers or workers interacting with young children. I'll bet that lots of parents have a talk like this with their young children: "Johnny/Jane, if your teacher ever touches your private place or makes you touch them, you need to tell mommy and daddy right away." Now, I don't know if it has been studied, but I am willing to bet that for every time this conversation happens in the context of talking to a child of a female authority figure that it happens 10 times in the context of a male authority figure. Result: children grow to expect that males will physically/sexually exploit others. Teaching that is certainly not the goal, but in the interest of protecting our children, we actually reinforce and further ingrain the stereotype.

I don't know what the solution is, but the VC/entrepreneur sexual harassment problem is not going to be solved only in Silicon Valley.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Kergan]

You could also heavily tax extreme revenue and extreme wealth, and then pay everyone a universal income so that would-be entrepreneurs can bootstrap their business without desperately needing a big wad of money.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[PopeRatzo]

Just curious, where, exactly, is someone supposed to get money for developingn their new idea?

It is amazing to me that you think there were no new ideas developed until the rise of capitalism.

Late-stage capitalism has stunted people's imaginations to such an extent that now they can't even envision alternatives.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, before the rise of capitalism, funding generally followed a patronage model, which is effectively the same as with VCs.

Re: Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Universal Basic Income is all about one thing: lazyness.

Besides, bootstrapping could cost millions. If not, even today people could raise the money on their own from banks, incubators, etc.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Finance 101 stuff. Probably most CS students never even think about taking a Finance or Econ course. If they did, maybe they'd better understand what they actually getting when they take a VC's money.

Investments with little risk have low returns, e.g. Money Market Mutual funds. Borrow money on a credit card, you pay probably 16-25%. Borrow money from a VC, you hand over what, 90% of your company when it goes public. If you haven't already figured out why, it's because something like 9 out 10 or 99 out of 100 VC backed companies go under. Very high risk. So naturally they want a very high "interest rate." It's not rocket science.

But if I'm a woman, and I borrow money on a credit card, I don't have to have sex with some schmuck banker to be able to charge a pair of Jimmy Choos on my credit card. And just because I've got a vagina and a mouth doesn't mean it's on the table to raise VC with.

And honestly, any VC that's funding $1M, $10M, $100M and asking for sex is just about as dumb as they come. There's way cheaper pussy out there. $10M for a blowjob. Or 10, or even a 100 blowjobs? No way man.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[ceoyoyo]

You forgot the part where they generally borrow that money from other people.

Just like banks, VCs can provide a valuable service. But there's a tradoff: when they start charging more for that service than it's worth, they become parasites.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Chris Mattern]

It is amazing to me that you think there were no new ideas developed until the rise of capitalism.

And yet, we can see an explosion of new ideas in the late 18th century and in the 19th century. This would be right around when capitalism became well-developed and wide-spread. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

And just because I've got a vagina and a mouth doesn't mean it's on the table to raise VC with.

Women have used their sex to get what they want since the dawn of human history. We can pretend like that doesn't happen but consider how incredibly rare it is to see a wealthy man with an ugly obese woman. If you can even find an example I assure you that it's not representative. Think that's a coincidence?

Indeed, when you consider that women are about 52% of the population, yet their sexual attractiveness can still get them wealth and (vicarious) power, you realize they are employing a strategy of vaginal artificial scarcity. It's not unlike what copyright cartels are doing in an information age. This artificial scarcity has several reinforcements, such as the widespread disdain for a woman who is thought to be "easy" or a "slut". The disdain doesn't just come from some kind of morality. Such a woman devalues the "product" by lowering its cost and increasing its availability.

The baser nature of men is to be pigs. Some men are noble, some are not. The baser nature of women is to be whores. Some women are noble, some are not. Piggishness and whorishness are complimentary. A whore isn't going to get much out of a noble man, but her charms are highly effective when used on pigs.

Re: Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

You get it from investors. VC is one type, there are others as well. But VC's tend to be more willing to take higher risks and often require less in terms of a well thought out business plan or solid product.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[PopeRatzo]

And yet, we can see an explosion of new ideas in the late 18th century and in the 19th century.

We also see an explosion of new ideas about 2.5million years ago among the Australopithecus. And an explosion of new ideas in the Nile delta about 6000 years ago. And in the Eastern Mediterranean around 750 BC. And in the early Renaissance.

If you think capitalism is the only way to get new ideas in society, you lack imagination or have been utterly brainwashed. If you can't see how late-stage capitalism has actually worked against the creation of new ideas and innovation and the erosion of social structures and human well-being, you just haven't been paying attention.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[kelanos]

That's a blanket definition with no resolution.
Why don't you just try to tell us 'All men are pigs, it's science'?

There is no excuse, no matter who the target is, for this insane perversion of justice, this blatant spurt of witch trials.

"But she said it was so! And I don't like the guy anyway, so what difference does it make?"

The true damage done is to the minds of the people who support this madness. The "thought" process involved in accepting this charade is poison for your humanity. Sure, you're trying hard on the "compassion" side of it, but all mammals have that at least. What about the RATIONAL MIND and WILL TO SEE THE TRUTH? If you lay that aside, civilization unravels. We degenerate into animals. All of us who see that need to set aside all differences and band together to weather to storm of public insanity that would destroy us all.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, a "VC" is someone who wants to get rich off of someone else's work and creativity. Parasites. They produce nothing but exploitation. It should not surprise that they seek to exploit everyone they meet.

A venture capitalist is also a facilitator for things of value to be created, and a venture capitalist can often provide needed capital when other economic mechanisms will not.

Of course mentioning such details wouldn't suit your SJW agenda.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious Man is obvious. And if you like it then you better put a ring on it.

But this post is about women in professional settings negotiating business deals.

I don't know where you are, but where I am, most people don't assume that because a woman is negotiating that it means her vagina is implicitly part of the deal. If you want to ask her out on a date, you don't do that at the bargaining table.

Re: Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

So he's modded -1 for slanging the truth. I see.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[LynnwoodRooster]

Bootstrap? I've launched a few ideas - some of them succeeded, some of them didn't - by getting them to prototype/proof-of-concept stage on my own. It can be done, typically, for a few tens of thousands of dollars. If you really are serious about the business, then you'll invest that over a few years of time on your own. And then you can go and start seeking angel seed funding to not only validate your idea (if someone outside your family and friends wants to toss some cash at an idea - it probably has a good chance of success) but help you refine the existing problems in your current solution and make the next pitch up. Start small - the grow. Works really well!

FWIW, one idea is still in limbo (still actively pitching it), another is starting to grow, one raised $50 million in series A and is a growing concern, and three others crashed and burned.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[LynnwoodRooster]

Confiscate 100% of all income from the top 1%, and you'll find you get about $1800 per month for every household in the bottom 50%. Not a basic income (at least in the US - it is well below the poverty line) and pretty much kills those who provide angel and VC funding sources (who overwhelmingly are those in the top 1%).

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Chris Mattern]

The only way? No. A damn good way, probably the best way ever invented? Yes.

If you can't see how late-stage capitalism has actually worked against the creation of new ideas and innovation

Indeed, the utter stagnation of society today is much talked about. Well-spotted, sir.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You can push all of history onto a continuum, and while that is not wrong, it occludes important parts of the story. The rate of innovations has been increasing. With the rise of certain hominid species, it jumped up. With the rise of agriculture, it jumped up much further. With the rise of laws and writing, it jumped up much much further. With the rise of the printing press, it jumped up much much much much further.

Even then, China and the Ottoman Empire had the kernel idea of the steam engine sitting around for centuries and no reason to believe anything would happen with it. But certain capitalist social changes brought the steam engine forward, and then the rate of innovation skyrocketed beyond what anyone had ever dreamed in the previous 300,000 year history of humanity.

... If you can't see how late-stage capitalism has actually worked against the creation of new ideas and innovation and the erosion of social structures and human well-being, you just haven't been paying attention.

There is more than a kernel of truth to that. But let's keep in mind that the migratory hunter gatherers also sometimes thought that bunching people up into fixed agricultural communities degraded the human condition through forms of social control that never existed before. Your complaint has been true about approximately every important innovation since forever. We has so much more technological innovation now, that there are inevitably proportionally more plausible arguments about how our humanity is being taken away.

I am not saying that those arguments are wrong or right. Personally, I think the invention of the smart phone has kicked off a planet wide social experiment that is both positively thrilling and terrifying at the same time. I think we do need to consider these negatives arguments about capitalism within the bigger picture.

Re: Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's modded -1 for the non sequitur. Sure, women "bargain" their bodies. So do men. Women in a professional setting negotiating business deals aren't including their bodies as part of the deal.

When you grow up you'll understand this.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you like it then you better put a ring on it.

and be prepared to be put through the ringer of divorce court later.

Spare us the tradcon approach. If you want that to come back, you'll need to dial back the feminism.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[AmiMoJo]

The word to describe these double standards if "patriarchy". That's what it refers to.

The strange thing is that while many people seem to agree with you when you state the issues as you did, if you point out that it's patriarchy and that feminism has been studying and trying to fix it for decades, some of them will throw a shit fit. It's like they have been programmed to have this Pavlovian response to any mention of feminism or feminist language, by Reddit and YouTube skeptics.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than that. One of those prank TV shows made a video of a couple fighting in public. When the women was yelling at the man people were edging her on "You Go Girl!", laughing at the man, etc... When the man was yelling at the women strangers were physically getting in the man's way and trying to pick a fight with him to protect the women.

It's everywhere that females need to be protected and that males need to be aggressive protectors. Try to find a Disney movie where that isn't true. In all the kid movies it's always the male constantly presuming his chosen female until she gives in to his constant advances. It's even true in stores where the hero is female. Kids are taught before they know anything about sex that women are victims and you only need to harass them long enough to get whatever you want. I even know a few couples in real life where the women says she wasn't initially interested in her husband but she eventually gave in, gave him a chance, then eventually got married.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, a "VC" is someone who wants to get rich off of someone else's work and creativity. Parasites. They produce nothing but exploitation.

Quite true. Knowing that, if you go to these people to ask for funding, you're a whore, whether the transaction ends up being purely financial or sexual.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, feminism has been trying to fix these specific problems?

1) Male teachers are automatically seen as evil, and female teachers are automatically seen as good (and troubled).
2) child custody nearly always goes to women rather than men in divorce

And furthermore, these problems are caused by "the patriarchy?"

It seems much more like you just skimmed his post, and read what your wanted to read (rather than what was there), and your Pavlovian response was to cry "patriarchy!"

With biases that strong, can you really blame people for reacting a bit defensively to you?

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

The word to describe these double standards if "patriarchy". That's what it refers to. [...] feminism has been studying and trying to fix it for decades

Leaving misandry everywhere you go is not how you resolve this issue ;)

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds great, but the feminists with the actual influence have demonstrated for decades that they're perfectly happy allowing those double standards to remain in place where they hurt men, as long as they're removed where they hurt women. Then they spout flowery language like yours about equality and solving men's problems to shield them from the criticism that follows. Actions speak louder than words. If you don't like being associated with that, maybe you should use a different label to describe yourself. Perhaps "egalitarian."

Maybe critics of feminists seem "programmed" to you because feminists typically shutdown attempts at rational debate, and they're sick of the bullshit, but still feel like venting and reading or watching "skeptics" ridicule the dogma of today's dominant ideology.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because "The Patriarchy" isn't a real thing. Sorry. You can put worthless labels on anything you want, but that doesn't make it inherently true. There is no demonstrable evidence of "The Patriarchy".

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[BarbaraHudson]

The best way? The one that produced the dot-com bubble, shitty social media, and the ethos of "what's your exit strategy" before you even have a product? Because that's what VCs look at - the exit strategy. They are not in it for the long haul. They don't give a shit about customers - they just want the buy-out.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[BarbaraHudson]

Instead of being a VC, they should have run for president. Then they wouldn't have these problems.

Trump isn't getting any sex. Even his wife won't let him hold her hand in public. Why do you think he's up in the middle of the night on Twitter? His sex drive is so low that he doesn't even want to look at porn. Twitter and Fox. Big Macs and steak with ketchup and Cheetos. Dat's all folks.

The finasteride that Trump takes to slow down hair loss means he's most likely got no libido, and no ability to have an erection. Which explains his turning to Twitter to keep himself occupied.

Trump's sex life is now limited to hall sex - where you pass each other in the hall as you go to your separate bedrooms and say "fuck you!" "fuck you!"

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[roman_mir]

Profit is the opposite of a tax. Profit is generated from voluntary participation of trading sides, tax is never voluntary, tax is a forceful removal of money by a collective mob.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Patriarchy is "who is in power" not "who is having sex." Girls are more ruthless to each other, keeping each other in line, calling each other "slut" and "bitch" all the time. It's not matriarchy or patriarchy, and the only reason call it patriarchy is because you are lazy and haven't investigated the true cause of the problem.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. So this suggests that even if the bottom 50% were all willing and able workers, there would never be enough jobs for all of them. Or least no means of paying them all for their efforts.

Even if they started their own businesses and such...by your math...the money wouldn't be there for all of them and so most of them would flop no matter how good a job they did.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Chris Mattern]

Point one: VC, in spite of their name, are not the be-all and end-all of capitalism. Singling out a cherry-picked example and mischaracterizing it typical of an entire class is not a good argument.

Point two: Okay, your position is I'm wrong, and capitalism is not the best method for advancing innovation. Therefore, you must believe that something else is better. What is it?

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[BarbaraHudson]

Curiosity and experimentation out of self-interest. All the original inventions used that - no capital. Stone knives, leather tanning, cooking, bone needles for sewing, language, drawings, and later written symbols, to represent real world things, animal husbandry, farming.

None of these required money, which is the use of objects to represent value, another invention that was done without money to exist before it was invented.

BTW - Steve Wozniak developed the Apple 1 by himself - no outside funding, no Steve Jobs. The Wright Brothers self-financed their flying machine. You can look for more examples.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, it shows that upward mobility happens. People start out at the bottom, and over time tend to move upwards. VERY few are trapped in the bottom - or in poverty - for their entire life. The vast majority move up. It's why older people tend to have more, and younger people have less... And it also ignore the fact that it's NOT a zero-sum game; the sum can increase.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[fafalone]

(men are far more likely to be convicted than women for the same offense and once convicted men serve considerably longer prison sentences).

And according to a certain Federal District Judge, this is right and just, because women commit crimes for less evil reasons than men do, so they deserve far lesser sentences than men for the same exact crime, which was his response to commentary on an article suggesting they should rarely receive any time, to which he strongly objected because they deserve less, not none. In stark contrast to his normally excellent and eminently reasonable comments, this coming from a sitting federal judge was shockingly sexist and offensive to the notion of equal protection:

After sentencing both women and men for drug crimes over the last 25 years I confess to frequently sentencing women less harshly than men in those types of cases. Why?

For reasons I donâ(TM)t understand, women caught up in the drug trade frequently lack a meaningful sense of self. In that respect, there is a stark difference between male and female offenders. As a class, women are, or so I think, (1) more easily and quickly addicted than men; (2) relatively incapable of independent thought and (3) child-like in their need for approval from their male co-defendants. Where I cut women drug offenders a big break is under Rule 35b after they have ratted out their male counterparts. That act of self-preservation, while not unique to women in and of itself, is often the first time those women have stood up for themselvesâ"not so for most men.

(I've put his name and the site/article this took place at on blast before, so I'll refrain from publicly doing it again, anyone who really wants to know can just msg me)

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[misexistentialist]

patriarchy keeps the sexes separate and unmarried women virgins, women "going to work" flaunting their bodies to strangers and expecting pimp daddy government to take care of issues like aggressive johns and abortion is whorearchy

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Chris Mattern]

"out of self-interest". In other words, capitalism. Your first examples were before money existed, but still were made in the interest of profit; it was simply that the profit was in kind rather than in (non-existent) money. Capitalism does not require "outside funding", only the pursuit of profit. Self-funded capitalism, even when it's small amounts of money, is still capitalism.

Re: Profit is a tax on productivity

[ArmoredDragon]

You know you could always refuse funding from them.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[BarbaraHudson]

Self-interest has nothing to do with capitalism.

People can act in their own self-interest in communism, where promoting the common good is recognized as being in everyone's self interest.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't grok the concept of the Patriarchy. Try being transgender sometime. Or gay. Or anything that might give a white male the heebie-jeebies. A good third of Americans will argue with whether LBGTQ people even exist, and assert that all of that nonsense is voluntary and sinful.

What you have is people like you, who don't like the idea that we exist and aren't willing to say or do much about it. You stand aside and look the other way, and quietly assume any negative consequences that accrue are earned. "That's just what happens to those kind of people." Take a look at the kind of life outcomes this results in, the suicide statistics particularly.

they're sick of the bullshit, but still feel like venting and reading or watching "skeptics" ridicule the dogma of today's dominant ideology.

That would be projection, jackass. I don't get dressed in the morning without thinking about what clothes are least likely to get me hospitalized for looking queer. And why? Not because I'm worried about some group of chicks beating me, it's because there's a whole goddamn world of men out there who will defend gender roles with violence, and a complicit government and society.

Eventually the world will realize that human biology does not actually divide itself neatly into XY males and XX females, and that that is normal. We can only fight basic biology so long. You're not interested in the topic, you're just here to bitch about these people that you think are annoying. The best thing for you is that no matter what happens to anyone queer, you don't have to care. Plus ca change.

Re:Profit is a tax on productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you read what "patriarchy" means? Although men are generally in positions of power under patriarchy, they don't always benefit in all contexts. Men have certain stereotyped roles, and so do women. Feminists want to eliminate a society where your gender determines unequal power relationships between men and women. Feminists write about the problems that men have under patriarchy.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up you slag and get back in the kitchen...

Money-grubbers are unethical?

[TimothyHollins]

Wow, are you seriously telling me that people who love money over everything else in the world would behave immorally? Noooo way.

That does not sound like the money-grubbers we have all come to respect and love (Bank of America, Fannie-Mae, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac)

Re:Money-grubbers are unethical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab her by the pussy!

Re:Money-grubbers are unethical?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone was telling you that. Also the corollary that people who don't love money are moral and ethical is completely false.

Finally, the idea that you would have the level of technology you have, at a price you could afford, without venture capitalists or banks funding startups is ludicrous, and the kind of thing someone who doesn't innovate and isn't entrepreneurial would engage in. That would be you cupcake. You like most people have spent your life using other peoples ideas and producing nothing much of value. But you feel free to criticize others without justification.

Re:Money-grubbers are unethical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because I benefit from other people acting selfishly doesn't mean I should be grateful to them for it.

How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Be rich 2. Be good looking

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[digitig]

3. Don't sexually harass anyone.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[KiloByte]

3. Don't sexually harass anyone.

That's a condition neither required nor necessary to get accused, and have your life ruined by that.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[digitig]

It doesn't guarantee not getting accused. but it sure as hell helps.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a condition neither required nor necessary to get accused, and have your life ruined by that.

And being rich and handsome doesn't help to avoid sexual harassment accusations either.

Re: How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If you change it to "don't ever try to have sex, or any sort of relationship with anyone" then it will usually (but not always) help.
Harassment is *unwanted* advances. Beautiful people's advances are rarely unwanted, ugly people's rarely are. And if you're a hot enough guy, there are few women who won't be flattered by an advance, unwanted or not.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[I'm New Around Here]

Not anymore.

"Hi Kelly. That's a lovely dress."

Sexual harassment.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[I'm New Around Here]

4. Never be around a woman with full audio and video being recorded, and a sign up saying so.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[I'm New Around Here]

God dammit.
4. Never be around a woman without full audio and video being recorded, and a sign up saying so.

Re: How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

Kelly: fuck you, I hate this dress, the fact you like it bothers me. You will see me in court mister harasser, your days are numbered. Filthy male pig.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It is always possible for someone to get unlucky and get lied about. But some people do like to use that as an excuse to live their life dancing ten toes over the line, and then exclaim it was not them but bad luck that got them into trouble when they stumbled just a little. Most of the "unlucky" people are far less than innocent. The fact that there are a very few people who are unlucky and innocent does not tell us anything important.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[AmiMoJo]

What I don't understand is that if there is this incredibly powerful weapon (false accusations) and abusing it rarely leads to any kind of punishment, as you have stated in other posts, why is it only women using it? Why don't men say they were sexually harassed or assaulted to get ahead?

Could it be that in fact there are consequences for false accusations?

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is that if there is this incredibly powerful weapon (false accusations) and abusing it rarely leads to any kind of punishment, as you have stated in other posts, why is it only women using it? Why don't men say they were sexually harassed or assaulted to get ahead?

Could it be that in fact there are consequences for false accusations?

Because a man who claims he was sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, or raped by a woman is simply not taken seriously. Combine that with the fact that "woohoo you scored" is more likely to be the attitude towards a man who gives in to a powerful/wealthy woman. And yes it is indeed physically possible for a woman to rape a man.

Other facts: women commit more acts of domestic abuse (that is, physical assault) than men. They do it knowing that if the man defends himself, she will be portrayed as the victim. If the man does not defend himself and tries to report it, he will be perceived as a weakling.

One thing feminism has utterly failed to address: the perceived status of "women are victims". So they increased their power dramatically ever since the 1950s, but they also kept the "victim" status to fall back on so they are never held responsible like men are for certain acts. This is simply a double standard.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing feminism has utterly failed to address: the perceived status of "women are victims". So they increased their power dramatically ever since the 1950s, but they also kept the "victim" status to fall back on so they are never held responsible like men are for certain acts.

Humor is often pointing out an uncomfortable grain of truth.

Receptionist:
“How do you write women so well?”

Nicholson:
“I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't compliment anyone. I try my best not to speak to anyone in my office unless it is something directly work related or involves the most inane, neutral topic possible ("It's hot out there today!").

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a man who claims he was sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, or raped by a woman is simply not taken seriously.

In other words, it's sexism. You know, sexism that feminists like AmiMojo claim to be against, whether it's hurting men or women. ...but of course, in actual practice, we see posts like the GP, where AmiMojo acts all dumbfounded when people talk about sexism that hurts men. Instead of "listen and believe" like Anita Sarkeesian preaches, AmiMojo doubts and mocks and discredits, like Anita Sarkeesian in action.

The sad thing is, people like AmiMojo is one major reason why we got Trump and Brexit.

Re:How to avoid sexual harassment accusations

[beastofburdon]

There are only consequences if you are a man. If you are a woman you can accuse whatever man you desire with complete impunity. Hell, you're likely to get a book deal out of it even if it is proven beyond any doubt that you lied.

Now comes the social justice feeding frenzy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, you're witnessing the destruction of the venture capital industry.

Sure, this guy may have been guilty.

But, like the "college rape epidemic", opportunists will use this to blow the issue completely out of proportion.

The resultant toxic atmosphere will almost certainly curb venture capital. Who will become too worried that a stray word or look could bring a lawsuit or worse, be used to, somehow, screw them out of their investment...

Culture of dismissiveness?

[Kohath]

WTF does that mean?

People in high responsibility positions like VCs tend to think they're right about things. That's not dismissiveness, that's playing the odds. Odds are, these people understand their own business better than random bystanders. The race or gender of the random bystanders doesn't change that.

Race or gender or other difference probably makes it harder to communicate and change someone's understanding though. That's not a fault, that's humanity.

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[quonset]

The culture of dismissiveness relates to people saying sexual harassment isn't rampant or doesn't happen as much in the tech industry as people say. Despite article after article, complaint after complaint, despite all the documented evidence, people, yourself included, either make excuses for why it happens or dismiss the accounts outright.

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Zemran]

To not believe that the problem is a serious as the media makes it out to be is not dismissive, it is an informed opinion and a valid one. Yes, there are complaints but in factories across the country workers are abused without the opportunity or ability to complain as effectively. Having worked in the sector for decades I see the problem as being grossly exaggerated by SJWs and professional complainants. That is not to say that people who do abuse other should be allowed to. You are welcome to disagree with me but the label "culture of dismissiveness" is as stupid as "Islamophobia" or "homophobia" which are both used to refer to people who are not afraid although terroristophobia might be more accurate.

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Kohath]

The culture of dismissiveness relates to people saying sexual harassment isn't rampant or doesn't happen as much in the tech industry as people say.t.

Because that's the nature of news and storytelling. A story of one event gets repeated 1000 times. It's still one event, not 1000. It's news because it's rare, not because it happens to everyone 50 times a day.

Despite article after article, complaint after complaint, despite all the documented evidence, people, yourself included, either make excuses for why it happens or dismiss the accounts outright.

Myself included in fucking what?. I neither made excuses for [sexual harassment] nor dismissed any accounts of [sexual harassment] outright or otherwise.

Maybe people dismiss you and others like you because you casually make false accusations.

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Kergan]

And so, going by your logic, it's not that bad because it also occurs elsewhere? How is that not dismissiveness?

It shouldn't be occurring elsewhere either. SV currently has the media's focus. Hopefully they'll embrace better ethics and become an example for other industries to follow.

(Or maybe they'll just no longer accept to give female entrepreneurs money. What a sorry world if that's the end game.)

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kind of proving their point.

"After all the complaints". But that indicates you think it's a rampant thing. Yet you get that impression by complaints, not evidence of the complaint being true, and not comparing it with the complaints in other areas. Or indeed any statistical analysis of any confounding factor in play (for example, fewer women mean a higher proportion of "creep" to "female", therefore a higher rate of complaints per woman, even if it is no worse than anywhere else).

Moreover, their complaint about "it's not as bad as you make out" is them working out how bad YOU mean it is when you say it's bad when you have done ZERO calculation of how bad it is, nor compared it to what would be expected anywhere else and accounting for confounding factors. So you are asspulling "it's a problem" with no means of objectively determinging how big that problem is, then they asspull what they think the missing size of the problem is, then disagreeing with it being as bad as they think you think it is. Then YOU, without knowing how big a problem they think YOU think it is, proclaim that the problem is bigger than they think it is based on their claim it's not as bad as you think it is (based on what they think you think), which you never bother to find out. Because maybe they think it as bad as you actually do, but they think you think it worse than they do.

When the entire problem starts with you not showing how bad it is to begin with.

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Anonymous Coward]

01. Nobody dismisses the existence of sexual harassment because sexual harassment is one of many inherent byproducts of sex, and sex is a constant in human nature. It's something that will always exist as a long-term maintenance phenomena that will never cease until Humanity ends.
02. Culture of dismissiveness also applies to people saying false sexual harassment accusations aren't rampant or don't happen as much as people say. False accusations are also one of many byproducts of calculative capability, self-interest, motivation, and ambition, which are also constants in human nature. They are also something that will always exist as a long-term maintenance phenomena that will never cease until Humanity ends.

The only thing relevant is that the justice system has laws that regulate these phenomena (it does);
that the justice system answers to accusations and review cases when put forth (it does);
that vigilantism isn't allowed because vigilantism is the worst form of a judicial system (feminism happens to have taken on a vigilante role in the recent years and fucked up enough times that it is increasingly hated now);
that the laws don't ban sex or allow false-positives to exist as a consequence of regulating these negative phenomena (again, sex-negative feminism is corroding this principle and subverting it due to tribal mentality because it doesn't like people making a distinction between rape and objectification despite one being an act and the other being a relative abstract phenomena which comes under individual preferences - and the definitions of sexual liberation are that all sexual preferences should be respected regardless of negative outliers as they define a person's identity and humanity);
and finally that in sexual harassment cases both parties, the accuser and the defendant, are equally scrutinized with equalized and balanced peer pressure that is unbiased (which again is becoming a problem in these past few years due to tribal mentality corroding rational and objective judicial conduct due to radical feminism and its tribal mentality).

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not dismissive to suggest that if tech is no worse than any other industry, the media's obsession with tech undermines the fight against sexual harassment by presenting it as a localized problem.

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[I'm New Around Here]

The culture of dismissiveness relates to people saying sexual harassment isn't rampant or doesn't happen as much in the tech industry as people say. Despite article after article, complaint after complaint,

about people telling jokes between themselves that others are not meant to hear. And rather than simply asking politely for the people to tone it down, publicly "shaming" them so they lose their job for telling a joke between themselves.

despite all the documented evidence, people, yourself included, either make excuses for why it happens or dismiss the accounts outright.

Actually, I stopped reading the rant at the above break.

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[kelanos]

Now when do you start to realize the horrible threat this insanity is to our society and start fighting back against it?

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not dismissive to suggest that if tech is no worse than any other industry, the media's obsession with tech undermines the fight against sexual harassment by presenting it as a localized problem.

Technology is the first thing to come around in hundreds of years that actually challenges Old Media's stranglehold on information. It's no surprise they're obsessed with it. They want to keep their old system with its one-to-many communication and the massive barriers to entry for any would-be competitor. So they demonize tech because tech threatens it.

For other more political reasons they do the same thing with guns. Though it happens frequently, you will *never* see a story by any major news outlet saying "a law-abiding citizen with a conceal-carry permit stopped a crime in progress and (as is typical) didn't have to fire a single shot, in fact the mere presence of the gun put a halt to the crime long enough for police to arrive". No, the story will say "the criminal was subdued until police arrived".

The only difference is, their hatred of tech is much more pragmatic. In both cases they do whatever they want with impunity and most people don't understand how much this happens. They'd very much like to keep it that way, same as any other entrenched power.

Re: Culture of dismissiveness?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so happy that /. is a place where there is still room for reason, in an age where every other online platform seem hell-bent on supporting the extreme left (for profit, of course)

Re:Culture of dismissiveness?

[Anonymous Coward]

The culture exists because of varying standards and that women are conditioned to be victims. Getting one text message asking for sex isn't sexual harassment. It's someone with poor social skills not knowing social etiquette or someone who doesn't like bullshit and instead values being direct and not wasting people's time*. If a person is traumatized after any single question, especially if it isn't even given in person, then the problem is with the traumatized person. Respond with "of course not" and move along with the rest of your life. If that doesn't end it and the person is continually begging or demanding sex, then it starts being harassment. But before that it was just a question, no more and no less.

Being offended or embarrassed isn't illegal yet a lot of instances end up sounding like one of these two things so everything starts getting dismissed just as the boy who cries wolf gets ignored. It doesn't help that must of the accusations come out years after the incident. If the event was so traumatizing, why didn't they seek help then? Why does it takes decades to gain the courage to say someone is an asshole? Why keep interacting with that person if they make you feel unsafe? A lot of these people's stories don't match up with their actions.

Yeah, I have been in a position where a person with power over me tried to use it to get me to do things I didn't like. It's an extremely difficult position to be in and sticking to your values feels nearly impossible. I'm not faulting for anyone giving in to that type of peer pressure. I'm faulting them for when they then spend years afterwards beating themselves up about it instead of improving themselves to prevent it from happening again. Constantly telling yourself that something was a big deal and traumatized you eventually causes that to be true. However telling yourself the opposite also causes the opposite to be true. Far too many people stay in the role of being a victim and for not trying to get better we can blame them. "I got hurt so everyone has to help me" is not an appropriate response. People acting like that should be dismissed/shunned once they've been informed they're being an idiot.

*Tons of people say they want everyone to be 100% direct with them then complain when someone asks a personal question out of the blue. There's way too much fabricated drama in the world.

In a world where porn is rape

[Anonymous Coward]

In a world where porn is rape, I've given up on stories like these. I don't have any idea if sexual harassment means they were 1950s style raped, or 2010 "watched a movie with a porn scene" raped.

If we're talking 1950s rape, I'm mad. If we're talking 2010s rape, hey, good on ya brother!

Listen to PopeRatzo

[Kohath]

Everyone should read PopeRatzo's comment and understand it.

Then think about how much better off you'd be without any of the products or services that were backed by VCs or motivated by profits.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[PopeRatzo]

Then think about how much better off you'd be without any of the products or services that were backed by VCs or motivated by profits.

I'm not saying that profits are all bad, only that we should see them for what they are. Just as not all taxes are bad, since they allow us to have something like a civilized society with roads, indoor plumbing, common defense. It's when profits (or taxes) get beyond a certain border condition that they become socially and economically destructive..

So, I repeat: Profits are a tax on productivity.

I'm not the first person to realize this, of course. Way back in the early 1800s, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was saying the same thing.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[Kohath]

...Just as not all taxes are bad, since they allow us to have something like a civilized society... Profits are a tax on productivity.

People work (more than the absolute minimum to survive) and invest what's left over to earn a profit. Profit is the motivation.

We didn't build a civilized society because we wanted to pay more taxes.

Profit is the reward for putting money and time toward a productive enterprise instead of spending it entertaining yourself.

Re: Listen to PopeRatzo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we're well aware thanks to millenia of history that humans as a species lacks the wisdom to control technology.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[drinkypoo]

Profit is the reward for putting money and time toward a productive enterprise instead of spending it entertaining yourself.

There are other rewards as well, such as the products of such an enterprise, or a lack of hungry rioters in the streets.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[Kohath]

There are other rewards as well, such as the products of such an enterprise, or a lack of hungry rioters in the streets.

Yes. When people do things to earn a profit, there are direct benefits to the others involved and huge side benefits to society in general.

Re: Listen to PopeRatzo

[Kohath]

That seems like a non sequitur. Also wrong, things are actually going rather well with technology.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone should read PopeRatzo's comment and understand it.

No, everyone should consider ALL the available information and use his or her own brain to reach an opinion.

PopeRatzo is just another confused effeminate SJW twerp who will say whatever he thinks is in fashion at the moment.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[epyT-R]

Oh believe me, I understand it perfectly well. I've considered his statement and rejected it because I don't want to live in a mud hut commune like he does. Profit gives motivation to expend effort beyond subsistence levels. It also allows specialization so that we don't ALL have to spend 90% of our time grubbing for food. The internet, in fact, most of the technology stack going back to the days of early electricity, medical knowledge, transportation, and farming techniques were all motivated by people who wanted to profit so that they could live well. This applies from the VCs/banks/governments who fund its development to the technicians who install and maintain it.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[epyT-R]

No they aren't. Profits motivate productivity. What happens to a company's profits if it quits paying its workers?

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[93 Escort Wagon]

Then think about how much better off you'd be without any of the products or services that were backed by VCs or motivated by profits.

Oh good grief. VCs are providing money with a stated goal of earning more money in return. They're hoping to get richer - it's not like they're going to walk away if they're not allowed to force female applicants to blow them.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[PopeRatzo]

Profits motivate productivity.

All productivity comes from labor, and labor very rarely shares in profits.

What happens to a company's profits if it quits paying its workers?

It's stock price goes up.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[epyT-R]

All productivity comes from labor, and labor very rarely shares in profits.

So most people work for free then?

It's stock price goes up.

Yeah.. not for long, certainly once stockholders find out the company doesn't have anyone producing anything.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[BarbaraHudson]

just another confused effeminate SJW twerp who will say whatever he thinks is in fashion at the moment.

You mean like you and all the other MRAs now that Trump is leading the way?

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[PopeRatzo]

So most people work for free then?

Payroll is specifically not profit. Payroll happens "above the line" and profit is what happens below the line.

If there's one thing that the past three decades have taught us, in late-stage capitalism, profits only affect payroll negatively. Companies don't pay workers more because their profits go up, but they often make their profits go up by paying workers less.

Re: Listen to PopeRatzo

[Brockmire]

Because it can't work the other way. Tax the unproductive, you get nothing. Tax the productive, you get something and they make more. Life ain't fair.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[rtb61]

To claim that is the stupidity of capitalism that puts no value on peoples lives, the air they breather or the water they drink. Corporate profits are a tax on life, parasitical in action, draining the lives and efforts of human beings as well as pillaging the planets resources leaving extreme pollution in the wake. It is when profits get out of control, that action must be taken and the corrupt removed from position of governance, power and influence. The majority does not exist to feed the insane psychopathic greed of the minority.

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[ArmoredDragon]

Now how was I able to predict that Blarbara would be all over a sexual harassment topic like flies on shit?

Professional victim reporting for duty, sir!

Re:Listen to PopeRatzo

[BarbaraHudson]

Because you have a seriously fucked up infatuation with me. Anyone following your posting history can see it. Go stroke off some more to some tranny porn - it's what you do best.

Re: Listen to PopeRatzo

[ArmoredDragon]

95% of the time I reply to you, it's when you're thread crapping to discussions like this one by incessantly playing the victim card in order to narcissistically draw attention to yourself.

Every other time, I don't even notice that you're the one I'm replying to.

Re: Listen to PopeRatzo

[BarbaraHudson]

Make all the rationalizations you want - everyone knows you have a "thing" for me, and you're pissed off that I keep making fun of you for it.

Re: Listen to PopeRatzo

[ArmoredDragon]

I'm not making any rationalization, I'm stating a fact.

Re: Listen to PopeRatzo

[BarbaraHudson]

That's what everyone who makes rationalizations says :-p

Not entirely a bad thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the claims were ALL faked, it would still not be an entirely bad thing.

If, taken for sake of argument, the most eggregious version of the claims being unjust, if VCs absolutely fear any flirting being used as "reason" for a harassment suit and losing them job and a massive wad of cash, the VCs will refuse to let possible sexual advances be made when discussing investment.

Therefore, in this case where the men are most heinously wronged, women will lose the ability to exchange poon for cash in a VC investment deal, making the availability of cash to male entrepreneurs much more even. You don't get males able to bang for investment cash very often. If all VC negotiators are 100% afraid of unjust accusation of sexual harassment, they'll

a) use more monitoring as evidence there was no problem
b) have second opinions on hand as witness to their innocence
c) not one will risk their job as VC negotiator just to bang some women, protecting both male entrepreneurs AND women from the occasional creep who just got into the job to humiliate and browbeat women for sex

And if the mix is less one sided and the accusations either partially or entirely valid, this case merely makes the positive results this would provide even greater.

Sure, VCs at the moment are getting it in the neck, and that's either deserved or not,but the positives are there no matter what the share of blame is. And if VC meetings are so capable of being manipulated either to solicit sex or hide proof of a false accusation of the same, then VCs have nobody but themselves to blame for not taking proper precaution and make the evidence easy to obtain if needed for a court claim.

And to the other poster, no, it doesn't take a "pig" to deny there's a problem. All that you need to be is a person who doesn't believe claims on a "say so" of some other. After all, you don't believe the claims of the men saying they're innocent, do you, or their claims it was not what was claimed, you want EVIDENCE they're right. Given there are people out there who lie, and lying is an equal opportunity employer, and that we have evidence claims of assault have been made up in the past, we know that there's no justice in just believing the victim. And doing so may be enough "evidence" for you to claim that those people are "pigs", but it doesn't justify that claim to any rational human being.

Here's one example where both people are right, and both claim the opposite thing.

Two drunk people have sex. The woman wakes up and thinks "Shit, I was far too drunk, I NEVER would have done this if I hadn't been drunk." She now thinks she was raped. And because the definition, she was raped. The man thinks "Shit, we were going at it hammer and tongs, my back will never be the same". And he isn't a rapist. By the definition of the term.

Because rape includes in the definition the perception of the act in the mind of humans.

This is not necessarily wrong, because the only other options may be worse, therefore this is the best option. But we can't go and claim some internal problem based on the perceptions of someone else, because that's two minds having to make assumptions not in evidence.

So when you claim "pigs", all you're doing is retconning into someone else's head YOUR reason why THEY are saying something. That isn't THEIR problem, it's YOURS.

So back to that rape scenario, she deserves the comfort of justice for feeling she was raped, which is what she sees and the definition of rape is just that way. But the man doesn't deserve the punishment for "being a rapist", since he isn't and never was. If he'd knowingly forced her into sex or drugged her or some other deliberate provable act (e.g. beat the crap out of her gives VERY clear proof that the man knew it wasn't wanted), then HE IS A RAPIST.

It's like the difference between manslaughter, accidental (culpable) death and murder. All three deserve compensation and justice for the death resulting. But the punishment for the action is dependent on what c

Re:Not entirely a bad thing.

[PPH]

women will lose the ability to exchange poon for cash in a VC investment deal, making the availability of cash to male entrepreneurs much more even. You don't get males able to bang for investment cash very often.

We should go back to the times when you would have to meet investors and raise venture capital at places like the Bohemian Grove.

Women are always sexually assulting me

[Anonymous Coward]

and I don't like it. I'd sue, but being women, they don't have any money.

Same old

[Anonymous Coward]

So they hoped to use tits to get some money and it did not pan out?

Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to capitalism, companies need seed money, which they turn into profit.

If your investing decisions are based on how cute your find the woman CEO, then you'll quickly get canned. And if the woman CEO gets her funding cut, she'll scream sexism.

But its really all about money.

Re: Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to need to make them sign a clause before borrowing money.

[ X ] No I was not sexually harassed in any way.
[ X ] No I did not use my body to get this money in any way.

To make it fair for everyone.

Hi!

[Rei]

"Hi, I'm Dave McClure. You may remember me from such investment proposals as "Shake your ass for this investment cash!" and "Why yes, your funds are in my hotel room - let's go up and fetch them...."

Re: Hi!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, he invests in "Friday technology."

The bottom line: Money = pussy

[meadow]

If you have money you have as much pussy as you want. You can have every type you want: Asian, African, Indian, White. You can have pussy for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

That's how it is.

Re:The bottom line: Money = pussy

[Cmdln Daco]

And when that's all you want, you've done more than objectify women, you've objectified yourself.

It's a very reductive form of gratification.

Re:The bottom line: Money = pussy

[Anonymous Coward]

Objectification is a stale meme. Find something new to whine about because objectification is a very stupid thing to whine about.
It's part of human nature to have preferences on a relative and subjective scale, part of freedom of choice and fee will if anyone believes in it,
but all in all it is here to stay and no amount of whining about objectification will ever change it. In fact, whining about objectification is
the epitome of stupidity since it goes against the core principles of sexual liberation.

Too much insincerity for one article

[macraig]

Can we please spread that out across several articles at least? That's too much apologetic bullshit to digest in one sitting.

Re: Too much insincerity for one article

[Anonymous Coward]

God no, don't give them ideas.

Move on to the NSA "traffic shaping" or whatever.

Re:Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They couldn't even handle the ONE thing a woman has to do to be beautiful - manage their weight. Calories in vs. calories burned is so fucking simple to understand but they couldn't even do that.

Vis a vis the guys. I'd hazard that 50% of the guys in my office are overweight. Some even morbidly obese.

Calories in vs. calories out. Simple to understand. Obviously pretty hard to do for guys as much as the gals..

Now go crawl back under your bridge, troll.

I observe that losing weight is easy (though not instant) once the fatty stops making excuses and decides they're going to do something about it. As long as it's "McDonald's fault" or "random chance" nothing ever changes.

Just want to say that....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying these women weren't harassed. But, no names were mentioned, and everything said are vague generalities. I cant take this seriously unless names are actually mentioned; otherwise it's just stories (and hearsay).

Remember that:
- No names were mentioned.
- No independent verification; no timestamps, no proof of location, nothing. Remember, these are people in SV; they would be on facebook, twitter, etc. and yet there is no substantiated proof?

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So in order to embrace diversity, we need to allow harassment because that's how it is in other countries and cultures? Wow! Just wow! Your standards bar isn't set low, it's not there at all.

Do not deal with women if you can help it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never be alone with a woman in the room with no recorder operating.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking for sex isn't harassment, there's no way to know if an advance is unwanted until it's made.
It's when a rejected attempt is repeated or when the request happens in a formal business setting that it's a problem.

If it was Ryan Gosling investing the money and sending the texts, they'd be all over his dick.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[I'm New Around Here]

"All the American misogynist pigs will be replaced by H1-B-visa-holding misogynist pigs. Please train your replacements in your most effective misogynistic methods, or you will not be getting a severance package."

He wasn't condoning it, he was stating that reality might not be what the OP thinks it is.

idiots

[l3v1]

I just don't understand these guys. I'm a guy, I've been working in IT/CS-related positions all my adult life, mostly around and with guys, no surprise there. However, every professional experience I had with female co-workers and external project partners has been very positive, successful, and exceptionally smooth. As in all aspects of life, probably not all people are exceptionally talented and I might have been very lucky to work with such women. However, I have to say, everyone willing to gamble with their professional relationships for, how to put it, non-professional reasons, is simply an idiot and not worth having contact with.

Re:idiots

[ooloorie]

I'm a guy, I've been working in IT/CS-related positions all my adult life, mostly around and with guys, no surprise there.

You're a regular schmuck dealing with regular women. You have work to do, they have work to do, and both of you realize that hooking up would be more hassle than it's worth.

These are upper class (or aspiring upper class), privileged men and women; they live in their own world. The lives of both groups revolve around looking good, presenting themselves, and socializing at dinner parties, golf tournaments, charity events, and weekend retreats. That's why the men hit on the women, the women hit on the men, and occasionally, when it serves their interests, the women complain that they got hit upon.

Just stay away from these people, male or female, and you'll be fine.

Dismissiveness isn't always a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone has good ideas all the time. Some people have bad ideas most of the time.

Dismissiveness *because* someone is a woman is a Bad Thing. However, being a woman shouldn't make someone immune to being dismissed in all scenarios. There's a difference between being dismissive of bad ideas regardless of where they come from (men or women) and being dismissive of ideas that come from women because they come from women.

I'm not saying that being dismissive is ever a particularly polite or even wise behavior... but given the personalities of many engineers I've encountered, it's also not terribly uncommon. Some people have a personality type where they just "don't have time" to deal with things that they consider unimportant... regardless of who's suggesting them.

I just hope we're not confusing one pathology (bluntness) with another (misogyny).

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

Let me help you. Here's my million dollar tip:

Ask for a date first before you ask for sex.

You can thank me later.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think at least one of the posts in the chain might have been sarcastic, but you never know.

Re: Objectification

[meadow]

No one does it better to women than they do to themselves by allowing men to do it to them. They choose not to rise above base animal instincts and reward and procreate with the aggro scum who have the $$$. The Earth belongs to aggro disgusting scum until everything collaspes and burns from the consequences...

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Dating's an outmoded concept these days. Neither side wants to go through the bother or the expense of going out for a song and dance before getting down to business. Many times, sex isn't 'asked' for either. It's implied mostly via nonverbal cues on both sides.

Re:Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[epyT-R]

The skepticism you refer to exists mainly because feminists have created a credibility problem for women in these matters.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

But then that's lying if all you want is the sex.

Women like sex too. Don't just push that aside like it's such a shameful thing for a woman to want.

Let's have all VCs be women

[Applehu Akbar]

Then male snowflakes can run to their lawyers to claim harassment:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

It's implied mostly via nonverbal cues on both sides.

Oh boy.

Overperforming must be fixed

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the SJW army will have SV tech performing like the American auto industry in no time now that the target has been acquired.

Lookee my skin, sucker

[Anonymous Coward]

The photo in the nyt shows them showing plenty of skin. These folks seem to think that it's useful to use sex to gain advantage, but don't like it when it leads to more than advantage. Time to require burkhas in the workplace.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a true million dollar tip:

Don't get married.

All costs totaled (including kids, luxury, divorce, and adjusted for the supposed salary bump), a marriage will reduce a self-made millionaire to a poverty line existence with no retirement.

-----

A false domestic violence charge, or a false rape charge, will wind up costing you thousands of dollars even if there is no conviction; and convictions are possible even of she doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

I am going to sit here and admit that I am paranoid about interacting with women...reading the news will do that to a person.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

Now you tell me? I've been happily married for almost twenty years and have three kids.

Re:Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[spire3661]

Men have primary sexual traits that go beyond appearance. Wealth, stature, power are all more important than looks for a man.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. The lowest common denominator of our culture is base hedonism. People obsess over getting that itch scratched, opening themselves up to a huge variety of risks and expenses, and yet they remain ultimately unsatisfied.

Not a religious nut. Just old enough to have gained the mental clarity that comes from a slightly diminished sex drive. A life chasing tail is an empty life, and when one wakes up to this one usually discovers good reason to lament all the time and money wasted doing it.

escapades of the Silicon Valley nobility

[ooloorie]

You have ultra-privileged women angling for power and wealth complaining about the fact that a bunch of arrogant, ultra-wealthy men proposition them, and the neckbeards on Slashdot getting all worked up about it. It's like the poor, starving peasants of France getting worked up about the fact that noblemen proposition noblewomen at Versailles.

Wake up, people: the men and the women in these stories would look with nothing but contempt upon the likes of you if they even noticed that you existed.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wife has three...

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

The stork brought them don't cha know, so that I could raise them.

She kept her last name, the kids have mine.

The ultimate irony is that she has been raised by hippie parents, is as liberal as they come, and considers herself an atheist. Yet, I was her first boyfriend and she was a virgin when we met.

 

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

Marriage takes constant effort, and priorities change.

Yet, after so many years one thing is certain, my SO knows me better than anybody else and nobody knows her better than I do.

We are both flawed, but we rely on each other and know that we can. Right now our shared responsibility is the kids. Everything else is secondary. Who knows where things will go once the kids don't need us any more. But one thing is for sure, I will always respect and support her.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you spent more time among the plebs you would better understand normal human behaviour.

RAPE CULTURE

[lucm]

This is the kind of "exploitation" we're talking about:

At a mostly male tech gathering in Las Vegas in 2009, Susan Wu, an entrepreneur and investor, said that Mr. Sacca, an investor and former Google executive, touched her face without her consent in a way that made her uncomfortable.

That's from the article linked in the summary.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you stop giving people second chances they stop taking first chances.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[koomba]

Yeah I'm sure that's what she told you, was probably afraid she'd bruise your precious little ego if you knew you weren't her first.

Hahaha!

[s.petry]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

If you didn't mean it as a joke, you are a disgusting sexist pig! Why are you demanding women do everything a man does even when Biology prevents such?

Study Biology, recorded history, and recorded actual human behavior instead of believing fairy tales your gender study professor passes off as "education". Men have defended women since the beginning of recorded history because "biology". Men have gone to war while women stayed away from the battlefield because "biology". Women have raised children since the beginning of time, because "biology". Males produce testosterone which results in more muscle mass and stronger muscles. The other has a womb and mammary glands so that children can live (you do realized that children don't have teeth and need to feed right I hope). The lack of testosterone means among other things, they are not quite as strong as a male even when taking artificial testosterone.

Feminism has had some actual benefits for women in the past, but what we have today is a bunch of people creating fairy tales to create a victim culture and create animosity among the lower IQ who believe those fairy tales. Discrimination is illegal, end of statement. Women today have _more_ rights than men, not less (men are forced into the draft, and forced into combat. Women are not forced to do either). Both genders use their appearance and sex in both positive and negative ways and have done so since the beginning of time. Denying facts makes you a zealot, not smart. "Feminism" just happens to be your religion.

The new CEO of 500 Startups says...

[h33t l4x0r]

Whoa! That guy must be busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Re:Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Gee, for decades it was SOP to simply call any woman who ever asserted something bad happened to them a slut, because we all "know" bad things do not happen to good girls. Now that the old song does not work anyone, it is because these kinds of allegations are finally gaining traction that we should not believe them.

No, the skepticism has always been there, only the exact arguments why this skepticism today must be believed keep changing, well, a little bit. It is plausible that the pendulum will (or has) swing too far. But I would like to evidence such is the case, rather than just a lot of handwaving.

Same at a startup I worked at

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the founders was sexually harassing female employees and was reported to the VCs. They didn't give a shit. The founder is still active in the startup community.

You may have just called your boss an idiot ....

[King_TJ]

I agree with you... don't get me wrong. I've worked in I.T. for around 20 years in small to mid-sized businesses, both more "blue collar" type manufacturing places and "white collar" marketing places. And my own experiences are the same as yours. My co-workers and I in I.T. just want to get things done and accomplish the goal of making the business run a little bit better for everybody. Female co-workers I've worked with always seemed to be on that same page, and I don't recall any of the issues you keep hearing about in Silicon Valley.

But that said? Another person who replied to your post is correct too. This behavior tends to come from those in power positions in companies, not the "rank and file" workers.
The upper management types are used to making demands and having the rest of the workforce rush around trying to meet those demands. Is it stupid for them to risk their well-paid position for a sexual affair with somebody? Arguably yes! But sex has always been about emotions over logic. And for some, the thrill of "possibly getting caught" makes the whole thing way more exciting and enticing.

I've definitely worked at a couple of places where I had strong suspicions that an attractive younger gal was, indeed, involved in a secret relationship with a President or CIO of Finance. The whole time I worked for those companies though? They were never formally accused or "outed" for it. I suspect that's reality in the Valley too. A lot of this misbehavior has gone unpunished because plenty of females working there don't want to lose a good paying job that keeps a roof over their head and a car note paid. And being subordinate to the folks in the power positions at or near the top? They're going to have a big, uphill battle involving attorneys at great expense if they want to go up against it.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

Women like sex too. Don't just push that aside like it's such a shameful thing for a woman to want.

Nothing shameful about it, but relying on non-verbal cues is not want you want to do in this situation.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

Dude you know about that whole virginity thing? Nobody clued you in? If you'd ever encountered a hymen you'd knew it.

All this handwringing about tech harassment

[Magnus Pym]

I feel that the only reason why the media focuses so much on tech is that they feel we'll shrivel up and `cave'.

I have worked with other industries (oil, finance, construction, retal). Have friends who work there. What is supposed to be happening in tech is mild compared to the daily reality in other industries. The only difference is that these guys will take the media to take a hike if they are subjected to this coverage. And they will unleash the lawyers.

The tech industry:

1) Has a lot of money
2) Is mostly composed of apologetic men (`beta males' ?) who are frankly uncomfortable/scared around women, and are paranoid about not always doing the logically correct thing. They are afraid that Captain Picard is continuously judging them. Basically they are ripe targets and natural victims.
3) Do not know how to hit back/divert these criticism.

Can you imagine a tide of similar accusations against Exxon, or Goldman Sachs? `Endemic discrimination against women in the oil industry/not enough women in construction'? Hell, the country just elected a guy who is the poster child for this stuff... and plenty of educated women voted for him.

Re:All this handwringing about tech harassment

[ebvwfbw]

I guess you haven't figured out that Trump didn't do any of those things. The Russian stuff has been shown to be a load of BS, or fake news. So was all the other stuff. He did a lot to help women over the years. If he were like that, we'd have no shortage of women willing to tell us about it. Not just one or two, that according to Wikileaks were very likely paid to do that. Seems the Democrats paid people to go to conventions and beat people up too. Typical fascist, socialist type BS. Just look at history.

I think you're right on about the VC stuff, however. This is a load of BS. It probably has a lot more to do with them making bad business decisions and then trying to shake down the VC for more money. Try the sexual Harrassment BS card. See if that'll work.

I've been accused twice and I'm a nobody. Fortunately in my case it was easy to prove that they were lying both times. But suppose it wasn't? I would have been screwed. Especially in some cases they fire first, then ask questions. Even if nothing happened, even if you can prove it, you're still screwed. Both times they changed their story to try to nail me. Both times they dug themselves in even more. Ultimately what happened to them? *NOTHING*, *ZIP*, *ZILCH*! No penalty for women accusing men. They're a victim or some BS. IMHO I should have been paid millions. Let me tell you, there is nothing like being accused and you didn't do it. I can't imagine what people go through that are falsely accused of murder, worse convicted. Life can really suck.

Lot of liars out there. Some people think women don't lie. Oh they do. I think they make some of the best liars.

Stop using "men".

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we stop using "men" encompassing the whole gender and name the accused already.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Brockmire]

Dear troll, If it was simple for you to understand, you'd understand, but you don't. It is proven that it isn't calories in vs calories out. Your body intentionally shuts down functions for preservation. Eat less, and your body feels like shit (know any skinny girls who are fucking cold ALL the time?). It is also proven to be genetic. Experiments have been done with adopted twins. I agree a diet of rotten Ronnie's is bad for weight loss, but it's also stupid to be giving incorrect advice.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Brockmire]

Where is the irony? Also, it's pretty common for a girl to still be a virgin when she MEETS her first boyfriend... not sure what your point was. Unless you're a proud redneck.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

What's you point? Is there anything wrong with being a proud redneck?

At any rate, my point was we pretty much ended up living in accordance with very conservative values, although this was never our goal, and there is no religion prodding us to live that way.

24 Gold Diggers wanting to control SV.

[sethstorm]

These diversity candidates only gold diggers wishing to have the ability to do unchecked harassment - in the name of mandated diversity.

Yet those 24 use diversity to do the same.

[sethstorm]

One could also argue that their diversity status is their way for getting rich off of someone else's work & creativity.

Take away that from diversity candidates and they have no gold to dig.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes this explains why there are so many obese people at the gym, their genetic make up doesn't allow weight loss /sarcasm

There may be some people for which this applies, but let's not kid ourselves that it's the primary reason.

Re:Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, ANY AND ALL accusations of wrongdoing - of any kind - require hard evidence or, at the very least, multiple credible witnesses. Skepticism is precisely the correct attitude. If you reject that, you wind up with a default of "guilty until proven innocent".

The whole problem with the sexual-harassment concept is twofold. One, there is no objective standard of what actually constitutes sexual harassment - the standard is "was she offended" (yes it's typically a "she"). So you're at the mercy of the most easily offended potential drama queen, who may be attention starved, who may have an agenda, who maybe just doesn't like you and has no moral scruples - not a good legal standard at all. Two, it's a situation where the mere accusation can ruin your life. If you are accused of this, you can expect at the very least to be fired, your career destroyed, probably to wind up in a courtroom, and to forever be known as a "pervert" even if there is no evidence and it goes nowhere.

Those two traits make this entirely unlike all the rest of our legal system. Women simply don't face any sort of similar peril from hyper-offended men. So yes, you're damned right an attitude of skepticism has arisen. That's perfectly appropriate towards any system that's wide-open to abuse while claiming to be a good thing.

Now the whole sexual harassment deal could be done in a reasonable way, the same way we handle all other legal accusations, but not when the political pressure creating it is governed by the "men are evil pigs and women are always their victims" type of feminists. It's no surprise that an attitude of objective proof didn't come from this or any other agenda.

Re:Sexual Harassment is too Subjective

[ebvwfbw]

Someone modded you flamebait instead of posting something with some thought. You're right, it is a grab bag. I've been accused twice and I'm a nobody. Both times I managed to prove they were lying. Both times they changed their story once I showed it couldn't have happened trying to save the claim. Both times they simply dug themselves a larger hole to get out of. So what happened to them? *NOTHING*. They get no penalty. I asked about it and a lawyer told me there's nothing I could do about it. He thought the chances of me winning something were about the same as being hit by lightning. I think I should be able to sue them personally and win big. This is a very personal attack and it's TERRIBLE to go through. Suppose I couldn't prove that they were lying? I would have been screwed.

I think we need to be protected from BS accusations.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[DuranDuran]

Among the best comments I've ever read on Slashdot.

Not good enough...

[printwithstyle]

These were basically all the documented cases of situations where the aggressor wasn't good looking enough. Because if the aggressor was a 10/10 it would have been "Our eyes met from across the room, it was dreamy", and if he was a 5/10 it would have been "he was eyeing me in a creepy way, it was awkwarrrrrd", and would have been documented as sexual harassment. Pretty sure the whole male/female interaction dynamic is way skewed to begin with. Far too skewed for any reliable studies and too many social underpinnings guiding our reactions to situations such as these. Obviously no means no, but the hair trigger is strong in some of those documented cases, I'm sure. I'm fairly certain it all comes down to which cases were mutually shared/desired harassment, which is normally a love life, or whatever you guys call it. Those cases don't get reported. Or studied. Just the ones where the aggressor's attempt(s) were unrequited.

Re: Yet you pigs will deny there's a problem

[quax]

Thanks! Much appreciated.