Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
It's as if all that money and power was about trying to impress and bed women!
The men on this site are misogynistic pigs and will deny that any problem exists. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. This is why all of you need to be replaced by H-1Bs. People who condone harassment don't deserve to have jobs. It's like Joe Paterno looking the other way while Sandusky continues his vile behavior.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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)
1. Be rich 2. Be good looking
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...
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.
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!
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.
cunt piece of shit, get murdered
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
and I don't like it. I'd sue, but being women, they don't have any money.
So they hoped to use tits to get some money and it did not pan out?
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.
"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...."
Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
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.
Can we please spread that out across several articles at least? That's too much apologetic bullshit to digest in one sitting.
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?
Never be alone with a woman in the room with no recorder operating.
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.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
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).
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...
Then male snowflakes can run to their lawyers to claim harassment:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...
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.
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.
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.
Many sexual harassment claims are BS. Women want to be treated as equals in the work place, but when the going gets tough, a cross section of them trot out sexual harassment charges as their golden parachute, often getting a 5 to 6 figure payout because so and so looked at me wrong, or called me honey or sweetie or some other innocuous name that made me feel uncomfortable. I am convinced there is another cross section who use their sexuality as a weapon everywhere else, and the workplace is no different. They do all they can to seduce their boss and then if anything goes wrong, they selectively use emails and messages to get a payout.
Sexual harassment ignores the basic biology that women in a modern society have all the power. They can dress scantily, exposing their bodies with skin tight clothes, miniskirts, etc, clothing that 70 years ago would get a woman arrested for indecent exposure. All of this leads to an explosion of hormones in their male co-workers, making their lives difficult and distracting from work. A beautiful woman can dress provocatively, essentially sexually harassing every male that sees her, with no consequences, but one comment from a man can destroy his career. A beautiful woman can lure a powerful man, a CEO or even president, into risking his position, his family, his money, everything all because of the hormones she can stimulate in men. That does not happen in reverse.
We need to end this in the US, and the solution is possible: every company should require every employee fill out a form where they check a few boxes saying what level of interaction, what level of physical contact they are comfortable with (handshakes, hugs, etc.) and what, if any, kind of relationships they are interested in (professional only, friend outside work, romantic, or casual sex). This database is available to all employees, and if you select anything besides handshakes and strictly business relationships, you sign away your rights to claiming sexual harassment of any kind. Anyone who exceeds your relationship preferences can be reported to HR within 7 days as an internal matter, but, unless criminal laws are broken, life goes on... One of the key problems with sexual harassment these days is it is entirely subjective and no one knows what any one else expects.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
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.
lucm, indeed.
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 wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Whoa! That guy must be busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.
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.
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.
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.
Can we stop using "men" encompassing the whole gender and name the accused already.
These diversity candidates only gold diggers wishing to have the ability to do unchecked harassment - in the name of mandated diversity.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.