Tech Boss Attacks 'Whiners' in Angry Email (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The co-founder of a Silicon Valley investment firm said it is "not my job to make you all feel good" in a long email to staff and investors. Jonathan Teo from Binary Capital was responding to negative press coverage about the firm following allegations of sexual harassment by his co-founder Justin Caldbeck. He added that he was "tired and indignant," and raged against "whiners" who demanded his attention. Mr Teo has already offered to resign. He did so after Mr Caldbeck left the firm in June. "I'm incredibly sorry," Mr Caldbeck tweeted when the news broke last month. Mr Caldbeck's actions were one of several sexism scandals to rock Silicon Valley in recent months. They include a damning report into the work culture inside ride-hailing firm Uber, and the resignation of venture capitalist Dave McClure, who admitted "inexcusable behaviour" towards "multiple women."

Comments

He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

If he were good looking, it would be called "flirting" instead of "sexual harassment."

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that "Sexual Harrassment" has been expanded to "anything that makes me feel uncomfortable"

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS. A thousand times THIS.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also being viewed by a lot of women as a first-class ticket to unlimited media attention and a big fat legal payday.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Not this at all. It would also be called flirting if the guy is extremely rich.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

As it should. A work place is a place where work happens. Bosses hitting on their subordinates shouldn't happen. It's toxic to a work culture. My company has very strong policies about sexual harassment, including a ban on anyone entering into a sexual relationship with a subordinate. While the latter isn't sexual harassment, it's terrible for morale, and can be incredibly disruptive.

Surely your an adult and you can keep your hands to yourself, and you tongue firmly planted in your mouth when it comes to sexual or even flirtatious comments. And if you are incapable of that, then I would suggest the problem is yours. I know damned few fucking women that come to work hoping their boss or the guy in the cubicle next to them hits on them

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Are you all incapable of actually holding down a job that involves working with women? Are you that emotionally-driven that you can't just do your goddamned job and treat your coworkers with dignity and respect? Whether it's sexual harassment, or any other kind of harassment, any boss who doesn't take that seriously is asking for goddamned trouble, up to and including costly lawsuits. If you can't keep it in your pants, literally or metaphorically, then a judge will make you.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

This video pretty much sums it up. Ironically, it's from SJW-loving Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live (back before she and that show lost their damned minds).

Re: He must be ugly

[that this is not und]

It would be called flirting by the guy's expensive lawyer.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't agree more.
I limit my inexcusable behavior to my wife, and she seems to enjoy it.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

UMMM, Venture capitalist, tends to mean VERY FUCKING RICH. So I guess your just VERY FUCKING WRONG.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down... Take some valium or somethng...

Re:He must be ugly

[jellomizer]

Ahh, Good old Victim Blaming.
Because women love all the media attention and judgments, putting their career at risk, just for a payday, that is probably less than a full year wage. Well worth loosing out on a career that you wanted to do all your life.
 

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure wish that the definition of "harassment" were expanded to include sociopathic bosses who really enjoy acting like assholes and pushing people around. This is a much bigger problem than sexual harassment, only it tends to happen to men so no one cares. No white-knights in the legal system emerge to combat it because it has few opportunities for virtue signaling or scoring chivalry points.

Yet dealing with this problem and getting the sociopaths the hell out of management would be the single most effective way to reduce (all but eliminate) instances of workplace violence. But violence is viewed as a male problem (women prefer mindfuck if they hate you that much) so no one cares, not really, not enough to do something about it.

Re:He must be ugly

[cayenne8]

It's also being viewed by a lot of women as a first-class ticket to unlimited media attention and a big fat legal payday.

Yep, this is the new way to make up for the perceived pay-gap women claim they experience.

It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy. Anyone can hang an accusation of racist, mysoginist, xyz-ist....and it will stick and often cost you as that you are guilty till proven innocent.

Sure, some of these cases ARE legit, but there are so many out there that are not.

Guys....you need to be scared of being guys in the workforce.

Best advice is...DO NOT Attempt to date within the work environment, you are only asking for it....

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

There are no lack of workplace bullying lawsuits, and while I can't speak for every organization, the definition of harassment in our policies is pretty darned broad, and largely because our lawyers over the years have made it pretty clear that if a harassment lawsuit of any kind is delivered to our doorstep, we'd better be able to show that not only did we have policies in place to protect employees, but that they were enforced. Even the articles of incorporation and the shareholders agreement have language to force the removal of a director, which allows even members of the board to be held to account for violating company harassment policies.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. If you want to have employees then you need to treat them with respect, or shit like this will happen (and be well-deserved). Assholes don't deserve businesses

Re:He must be ugly

[lazarus]

My company has very strong policies about sexual harassment, including a ban on anyone entering into a sexual relationship with a subordinate.

No chance of this being abused... Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship? That sounds like a rule that is meant to express a policy but which is absolutely not enforcible and may, in fact, be against the law.

Most companies have a rule against moral turpitude of which even the feds have had to repeal the section on "adultery".

Your work sounds like a typical American puritanical bureaucratic shit-show. Nobody should be harassed at work in any way, including sexual harassment, but in the rest of the civilized world you can have consensual sex with whomever you damn well please without the church, your work, the government, or anybody else telling you what they feel is right or wrong or good for you.

I knew a husband and wife team who kept their relationship on the down-low but she worked for him in all the companies they were employed at together. Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

This worthless comment serves only to create a wedge for hating on women in the workplace. Deflect, deflect, deflect!

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

bitch bitch bitch whine whine whine

so sorry the patriarchy isn't the default anymore

cry me a fucking river

and if you can't get dates outside of your reporting structure you shouldn't be dating period

Re:He must be ugly

[K. S. Kyosuke]

including a ban on anyone entering into a sexual relationship with a subordinate. While the latter isn't sexual harassment, it's terrible for morale

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Are you all incapable of actually holding down a job that involves working with women? Are you that emotionally-driven that you can't just do your goddamned job and treat your coworkers with dignity and respect

It's funny that you first suggest that seeing people having a relationship is "terrible for morale" and then accuse others of being emotionally-driven. I'd rather think that Not My Fucking Business is the non-emotionally-driven to relationships of other people in any mature collective I'm in.

Re:He must be ugly

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Sorry, non-emotionally-driven approach, of course.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a woman hating you that much at your office you're screwing something up pretty damn bad.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming from another man, you are a misogynistic moron. Please don't reproduce and stop being such an obvious creep.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, Good old Victim Blaming.
Because women love all the media attention and judgments, putting their career at risk, just for a payday, that is probably less than a full year wage. Well worth loosing out on a career that you wanted to do all your life.

While you make a good point about the practicalities, you don't seem to really understand how a lot of women are, from an emotional perspective. That's at least as important as praticalities to them.

The same way that sex is important to most men, being the center of attention is every bit as important to most women. This is why there is the term "drama queen" and not "drama king". Especially if it's a slam-dunk issue where they can be portrayed (accurately or not) as right or innocent or virtuous.

This isn't what the woman is thinking at the time. It's more of an undercurrent. It's not flattering or favorable so a lot of people want to dismiss it, but you're missing the whole picture if you discount this tendency.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

When a manager has a sexual relationship, or even an emotional affair, with a subordinate, it alters the workplace dynamic. People will inevitably see favoritism, whether it's fair or not, and the manager's response, either to actually show his lover favoritism, or to go to the opposite extreme and be hard on that person as a show of resolve and strength, all have implications. A good manager understands he isn't managing robots, but human beings, who take their cues from management.

That's not even talking about the fallout of a breakup, which can have legal implications. Frankly I view anyone in management having an affair with a subordinate as a form of employment suicide, and there isn't a lawyer or HR expert in the world that will say "Just tell your girlfriend's peers to mind their own business". They're going to put it on the same level of horrible idea as open bars at company functions. In the risk-assessment world, having affairs with your staff is just one big bad fucking idea.

That's why the very best policy is not to have affairs with subordinates, and it's why most modern policies either outright ban such relationships, or require that the subordinate move into another department so that they are no longer under the manager's direct supervision. My company is very small, so there aren't enough "departments" as it were, so it's pretty much an outright ban. If I want to have a relationship with one of my staff, one of us is going to have to resign.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

And I know of at least three cases in the last five years of organizations I work with where the "down low" blew up in various unpleasant ways, one in which the Executive Director (non-profit) had a rather torrid affair with his secretary, leading to the nightmare situation of severe disruption, and ultimately forcing the Board to basically oust him and take control, though so far as I was concerned, they waited far too long, and should have forced the two of them to decide whether they wanted to remain with the organization.

Bully for the couple in question. I'm sure it can work, but there enough legal and organizational risks that in general, yes, I'd say my company policy would ban her from being his direct subordinate (or visa versa).

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you are being blamed or you make allegations doesn't automatically turn you into a victim. Guilty until proven innocent also implies that the crime itself must be proven. A dead body doesn't automatically mean there's a murder (hence autopsies to see if it was or natural causes) and a woman crying "bully" doesn't mean she's a victim.

For some reason, for this category of crime, people decided that human nature of lying and exaggeration doesn't happen (guess all men are demons and all women saints), thus creating an automatic guilty until proven innocent dynamic that is poisonous to women, that want to make it on their own merits, as well as men.

Re:He must be ugly

[rickb928]

This was ALWAYS good advice. ALWAYS.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know damned few fucking women that come to work hoping their boss or the guy in the cubicle next to them hits on them"

I know literally 0 Iraqis, yet Iraq people still exist, what a surprise.
What you know and think as a person is completely irrelevant.

I'm not going to do your work for you, but here are two links to get you started.
http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx
http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-is-killing-the-workplace-2010-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Basically, by making that single statement about what you (think you) know about what fucking women want, you're making everything else you write irrelevant.
The reason is that that single statement shows me/us what kind of reasoning you use.
And clearly you're not the kind of person we should be listening to.
That's what that statement of yours tells us.

Re:He must be ugly

[Rakarra]

No chance of this being abused... Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship?

Usually, they don't have to. Once it's found out, people tend to be fairly honest about it, especially since the penalty is not being fired, but being transferred to another department so there's no conflict of interest. Even if a company fired a worker and then claimed it was for a sexual relationship that didn't happen, that would open them up to a pretty big lawsuit. That's why you don't hear of that sort of thing happening.

That sounds like a rule that is meant to express a policy but which is absolutely not enforcible and may, in fact, be against the law. Most companies have a rule against moral turpitude [wikipedia.org] of which even the feds have had to repeal the section on "adultery".

Most states are employment at will states. They don't have to "prove" anything, certainly not to a legal standard, to fire you, just like you don't have to have a reason to quit.

Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.

Most reputable companies would not put them in a boss/subordinate position. That's just fucked up if they did that.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy.

RTFA. He's a Chink.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself. Or add something useful to the conversation. You're like the tech boss, content-less little whiner.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

How exactly does any of this disprove what I said? In fact it confirms what I've been saying, that such behavior is toxic.

Re:He must be ugly

[Hognoxious]

While the latter isn't sexual harassment, it's terrible for morale, and can be incredibly disruptive.

Doubly so when it ends.

Re:He must be ugly

[ArhcAngel]

It isn't emotion it is biology. So to answer your question...no. I cannot work around women without my body responding biologically. My blood pressure will go up. My hormones are going to kick in. My body will respond physiologically. How I respond to those impulses is up to me. But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well. I'm tired of SJW's who know jack shit about biology act as if there isn't a root cause to all the sexual tension in a mixed gender workplace. Women (all people) should be treated with respect and disrespectful activity should be punished regardless of whether it is sexual in nature or not. But to have a casual compliment branded as harassment because a woman ran to HR after you said her dress was pretty is just INSANE! Extremism on either end of the spectrum needs to be stopped. There should be a middle ground and when there is a misunderstanding it should be addressed in a mature manner. Today maturity is almost non-existent in society. Your response is just as harmful as the guy catcalling. If you have none of the symptoms of biology I elude to above then you are a minority. For most it isn't as black and white as you make it out. And in most situations there are always more than one side to the story. Now put your pitchforks and torches away.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be you're screwing up...Hiring.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, this is the new way to make up for the perceived pay-gap women claim they experience.

It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy. Anyone can hang an accusation of racist, mysoginist, xyz-ist....and it will stick and often cost you as that you are guilty till proven innocent.

Sure, some of these cases ARE legit, but there are so many out there that are not.

Guys....you need to be scared of being guys in the workforce.

Best advice is...DO NOT Attempt to date within the work environment, you are only asking for it....

It's only a bad time to be a white guy if you're an unrepentant, sexist, racist asshole.

So, like Russian fairy tale of Cinderella, "If shoe fits, wear it."

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

absolutely -- it's kind of the point really. If I was a woman engineer, I wouldn't be in the office looking to hook up with some loser guys who can't find a date. Imagine how Uber screwed over everyone so the boss could get laid.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL that's the day that I take advice on "how a lot of women are" from some 20-something Red Pill MRA asshole.

Re:He must be ugly

[Darinbob]

First, you seem to have a big chip on your shoulder. Do you honestly think that white guys have it worse in life than everyone else?

Second, it is never a good idea to attempt to date in the workplace, and most certainly never with someone you have a professional relationship with. Ie, maybe it's ok with someone from a different department in a different building and you never work with. but most certainly never with a manager or underling or anyone who gives or takes orders, never with a peer, or when there's a business relationship. Certainly, lots of people break these common sense rules, and sometimes magic just happens without it being planned. But someone looking to date in the workplace is almost always someone who's always on the prowl, actively trying to find out who's single, actively flirting to see who's interested, chatting up the new hires, and such a person is always labeled the company "creep".

In short - do not make your coworkers uncomfortable.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't emotion it is biology. So to answer your question...no. I cannot work around women without my body responding biologically. My blood pressure will go up. My hormones are going to kick in. My body will respond physiologically. How I respond to those impulses is up to me. But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well. I'm tired of SJW's who know jack shit about biology act as if there isn't a root cause to all the sexual tension in a mixed gender workplace.

"You see, your honor, I had to rape her. It was just my ol' hormones acting up again."

Re:He must be ugly

[Darinbob]

The reason for the rules very often arises from experience. The purely consensual no strings attached relationships do blow up and they do disrupt the workplace badly. When the don't blow up there is often accusations of nepotism or favoritism when the boss promotes the person in the sexual relationship than to the others in the group.

I've worked some places where some early relationships formed in the startup days (handful of people working in close quarters with zero free time to see anyone outside of work). Then you've got people in a relationship in relatively higher levels of power in the company. So I want to bitch about a persons behavior to my boss, except that they live together. It's hard to complain about that person to others in the company because they don't want to cause waves, and the whole thing is a minefield.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really that hard for you to just not comment on someone's appearance?

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well aren't you the precious little snowflake who's never had to deal with this sort of thing at work. Consider yourself extremely fortunate. If/When it happens that someone takes an interest in you for the wrong reasons, you'll have a very different attitude afterwards.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

>But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well

That's some quality shit right there, thank you. Made my day.

"If I don't hit on chicks I'll get ill and lose my mind."

Damn... Sounds like the latter is kicking in already.

If this isn't a troll, seriously, go get some help.

Re:He must be ugly

[hackertourist]

But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well. I

Bullshit. There's nothing unhealthy about getting a grip and acting professionally. People do it all the time. It's called impulse control.

Re:He must be ugly

[Wulf2k]

> Do you honestly think that white guys have it worse in life than everyone else?

Do you honestly believe that white guys don't have their own difficulties and inconveniences in life?

Should everybody just shut up about their own frustrations as long as there's a single group out there that has it worse?

Re:He must be ugly

[TimSSG]

But, it is perfectly OK if you are the President and you are having a relationship with a young intern. Right? Tim S.

When a manager has a sexual relationship, or even an emotional affair, with a subordinate, it alters the workplace dynamic. People will inevitably see favoritism, whether it's fair or not, and the manager's response, either to actually show his lover favoritism, or to go to the opposite extreme and be hard on that person as a show of resolve and strength, all have implications. A good manager understands he isn't managing robots, but human beings, who take their cues from management.

That's not even talking about the fallout of a breakup, which can have legal implications. Frankly I view anyone in management having an affair with a subordinate as a form of employment suicide, and there isn't a lawyer or HR expert in the world that will say "Just tell your girlfriend's peers to mind their own business". They're going to put it on the same level of horrible idea as open bars at company functions. In the risk-assessment world, having affairs with your staff is just one big bad fucking idea.

That's why the very best policy is not to have affairs with subordinates, and it's why most modern policies either outright ban such relationships, or require that the subordinate move into another department so that they are no longer under the manager's direct supervision. My company is very small, so there aren't enough "departments" as it were, so it's pretty much an outright ban. If I want to have a relationship with one of my staff, one of us is going to have to resign.

Re:He must be ugly

[thegarbz]

It isn't emotion it is biology. So to answer your question...no. I cannot work around women without my body responding biologically. My blood pressure will go up. My hormones are going to kick in. My body will respond physiologically. How I respond to those impulses is up to me. But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well.

Does your cave come with electricity and broadband, or do you go down to the local town and beat each other over the head with sticks to fight for the only computer with dialup and electricity?

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why there is the term "drama queen" and not "drama king".

Take a fucking wild guess which of the two sexes coined the expression.

Re:He must be ugly

[DNS-and-BIND]

I thought suppressing your emotions was harmful? Bottle it up inside and say nothing. Didn't Elsa from Frozen sing a song about this?

Re:He must be ugly

[ShanghaiBill]

It's also being viewed by a lot of women as a first-class ticket to unlimited media attention and a big fat legal payday.

Can you provide a few examples of women who claimed harassment, and received a payout that you feel was unjustified?

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

"Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship?"

If the penis doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, how many payouts can you find that were justified? I bet you can count them on one hand. Let's face facts, women are very good at playing the victim card. This ain't India or the middle east. Here it's easy money, most people don't fight back, they pay it off to make it go away, so why not be a 'victim'?

Re:He must be ugly

[DNS-and-BIND]

What, women don't like attention? Women love attention. Since when is that a men's rights issue?

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Women.

Women complain about other women.

They complain about their thigh gap, their unrealistic beauty, their bitchiness, their attitude, their competition for men, etc.

Men admire and want to be like other men they find ideal.

Women want to degrade and destroy any woman who might be better looking.

Re:He must be ugly

[nnet]

so because you choose not to control your biology, you piss and squat and shit all over the place too. fantastic. so on the evolution ladder you're lower than dogs. that'll teach them wimminz and sjw's ehyup!

Re:He must be ugly

[spire3661]

IS that the world you want to live in? Where no one can speak? There is NOTHING wrong with admiring someone else's appearance and telling them that.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you are an expert on women... Seriously, where do you get these bonkers ideas? I can tell it's not from regularly interacting with actual people.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

The one that identifies as a gay squirrel that prefers cross-dressing elks?

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the world I do live in. One where I speak with my colleagues about things that aren't related to trying to start an interpersonal relationship. Amazingly, I don't have problems with not making others feel uncomfortable at where they work.

What possible purpose can remarking on someone's appearance at work possibly serve than to try to express your non-professional interest in them?

Re:He must be ugly

[iMadeGhostzilla]

If I ran a company I would also forbid relationships between a boss and a subordinate. Terrible for morale as you say.

Outside of that employees flirting as is human nature and occasionally hooking up could be a good thing for morale, makes the place more lively and happy as long as all is done in good taste for the parties involved.

Re:He must be ugly

[jellomizer]

Culturally men need to initiate romantic relations. However in terms of work, this puts the woman in a bad spot, because if she shuts them down, either they may loose a good working relationship, or be in a position where they are powerless to avoid retribution.

The fact that they have legal standing, meaning if there is threat that they can bring up legal action, should put men who would try to do this, or even try to push the line.

They are sexual tensions, but we don't need to act on them.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

Until a love triangle forms... Even relationships between equals in a company can be problematic.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

About all I've learned from your post is that you are likely mentally ill, or at the very least severely emotionally retarded.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

That's long debunked psychobabble. The brain isn't a pressure cooker, and no, holding back your emotions is not only healthy, but pretty much a requirement of living among your fellow human beings. Those that lack impulse control are rightfully viewed as having some sort of emotional and/or cognitive defect.

I certainly have felt attraction to coworkers throughout my working life, and even where I wasn't married and thus had no significant other to betray, it just never felt appropriate to act on such feelings. The way to deal with them is to shift your focus elsewhere. If you're looking for love, well there's a whole world of people out there, so find your dating opportunities elsewhere. At least that's always been my rule, and while there might be a few days of discomfort as I grapple privately with my feelings, in the end, such attractions fade.

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

There is when it's in a workplace setting. What might be appropriate at a nightclub or a bar isn't going to be appropriate in your 9-5 job. You're not being paid to hit on your coworkers, and they're not being paid to tolerate it. Social rules are built on context, so what is an appropriate action in one environment is a major faux pas in another; as in it's totally acceptable to defecate in a washroom, but totally unacceptable to do it on the sidewalk.

For christs sake, didn't you have parents to teach you how to behave? Do you suffer some sort sort of impulse control issues? Are you mentally ill? Are you twelve?

Re:He must be ugly

[iMadeGhostzilla]

True. I think it's better to let adults handle it if it happens though, rather than put more too many rules in place. I'm reminded of what Jack Tramiel said when asked how he could do deals with Germans after having been in a concentration camp.

"You know," he once told me, "it's hard to believe it really happened. But it can happen again. In America. Americans like to make rules, and that scares me. If you have too many rules you get locked in a system. It's the system that says this one dies and that one doesn't, not the people. That's why I don't hate the German people. Individuals, yes. Rules, yes. But not all Germans." He shrugged. "They just obeyed the rules. But that's why we need more Commodores. We need more mavericks, just so the rules don't take over."

Re:He must be ugly

[MightyMartian]

But, it is perfectly OK if you are the President and you are having a relationship with a young intern. Right? Tim S.

No it is not okay, and what Bill Clinton (and heaven knows how many other presidents) have done is a classic example of an authority figure abusing their power for sexual favors.

Neither was it okay for the current POTUS to brag at one point that he could grab the genitals of any woman he wanted.

Re:He must be ugly

[jellomizer]

Normally when someone makes allegations it is because they do feel victimized. Of course it is up to the courts to see if what they did happen was indeed wrong.
However it is way too easy to just say they are just over reacting, when there is a problem. When there is a Allegation, you need to take it seriously. Normally the people who get in trouble with this, during the investigation is due to many woman stating it is an issue, and not just one poorly phrase comment, or an accidental touch, but a historical trend of problems.

You example about the dead body. You are stating that if they found a dead body and a person next too it. They will just take his word that he had nothing to do about it, and do no further investigation, and no autopsy. If there is an allegation or some evidence it should be investigated.
And the person who feels that they are being wronged shouldn't be afraid of standing up for it.

Re:He must be ugly

[cayenne8]

First, you seem to have a big chip on your shoulder. Do you honestly think that white guys have it worse in life than everyone else?

Nope, didn't say that...

Just saying that the category of "white guy" is the only one that people are completely, 101% free to disparage, and attack without impunity these days.

All over sexes, and races are protected classes from attack and disparagement....."the man" is always at fault these days.

The white man is very easy to blame these days for almost any given social ill out there today.

Re:He must be ugly

[HornWumpus]

When a woman changes her hair. You're generally supposed to notice, say something nice. 'You changed your hair, it looks good' etc. They would certainly comment if you wore a new suit (for the first time in years?). Just be a little careful, _you_ are no judge of woman's hair. Complementing their 'new hairstyle' when they were up all night with puking kids if a faux paux. That one bit me. Watch and listen to the other women, they know.

BTW If a woman comes in with a new push-up bra, don't say 'nice tits', say something nice. 'You changed your hair...no...well something's different today...it looks good.' Don't stare while saying this...or maybe do...if she's smiling.

Just not, if she's in your report chain, than you ignore the tits. If she bounces them, you have an excuse for looking. They're hypnotic.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Join the Junior Anti-Sex League today!

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right - how dare he even dream of engaging in normal healthy human relations in the workplace!

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be a neckbeard sitting in your mom's basement taking a break gaming. The vast majority of women who are sexually harassed do not get media attention and do not get payouts. Most either suffer it because they need the paycheck or move on. Better get back to your game before mommy brings down dinner.

Re:He must be ugly

[ShanghaiBill]

Conversely, how many payouts can you find that were justified?

Irrelevant. That fact that there were very few justified payouts has nothing to do with the fact that (so far) zero citations for unjustified payouts have been provided by people claiming that they are common.

Let's face facts, women are very good at playing the victim card.

Your zero examples say otherwise.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. Its not that hard to treat your female co-workers with respect and not hit on them. In fact my female co-workers liked me, and appreciated that if a customer was hassling them, I would step up and ask if there was a problem. Problems tended to disappear when dealing with a male employee instead of a female employee. I was raised to treat everyone with dignity and respect at least until they proved that they didn't deserve it!

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sirrah, are toxic. And quite creepy. Almost like you support totalitarian anti-sex measures because you feel the world needs to be protected from your own unsavory habits, which you project onto the broad population you seem to oppress.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Join the Junior Anti-Sex League today and receive a free "I hate love" tee-shirt.

Re:He must be ugly

[ArhcAngel]

You're inability to comprehend this subject is understandable. As humans we like to believe we are above other animals because we are "smart". I clearly stated my reaction to my body's impulses was up to me. What was not was my body's response to external stimulus. Using your example. If I was able to "control my biology" I would simply not ever need to go piss or shit. Since I am not able to control that portion of my biology I do in fact frequent facilities designed for the expulsion of said waste products. Of course you were just attempting to paint me as a knuckle-dragging nincompoop so as to discredit my assertion. You don't happen to work for CNN do you?

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

He is asian, nobody likes asian men, not even asian women.

Re:He must be ugly

[BronsCon]

Culturally men need to initiate romantic relations.

Well, there's your problem. That, of course, combined with some women either looking for a payday (e.g. making shit up) or being so full of themselves that every man who even glances in her direction must want her (e.g. imagining shit) can make it dangerous to even have women present in the workplace.

Admittedly, many (if not most) claims of harassment are legitimate, as most women with their head screwed on straight enough to land a job in the first place aren't that full of themselves. That, however, does not negate the fact that the ones who get the most media attention (and biggest payouts) happen to be the ones who don't have their head screwed on quite straight.

More to the point, why should two people not explore their relationship compatibility just because they work together? If they're not both adult enough to take "no" for an answer and drop it, well then, there's harassment and whoever can't hear "no" should no longer be employed. But it's important to recognize that this does, in fact, go both ways, and that it's not harassment until the would-be harasser knows it's unwanted; that is, until you say "no". Of course, once you've said "no", it does need to stop.

To be clear, I'm referring to verbal advances. Physical contact should always be opt-in, but there's really no way to opt-in to speaking, so that's got to be allowed to be opt-out. I mean, I suppose you could ask someone's permission to ask them out, but then someone complains about that and you have to ask permission to ask permission to ask them out... or we can just be adults and say "no" and drop it.

Re:He must be ugly

[parkinglot777]

A dead body doesn't automatically mean there's a murder (hence autopsies to see if it was or natural causes) ...

You example about the dead body. You are stating that if they found a dead body and a person next too it. They will just take his word that he had nothing to do about it, and do no further investigation, and no autopsy. If there is an allegation or some evidence it should be investigated.

I don't understand how you come into your conclusion from the parent post regarding the dead body??? The parent only said there should be an autopsy and it does not matter if there was a person next to the body or what the person said. Your interpretation surprised me a lot...

Re:He must be ugly

[ichimunki]

I knew a husband and wife team who kept their relationship on the down-low but she worked for him in all the companies they were employed at together. Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.

In other words, this man's ethical flaw was not sexual harassment, but nepotism. If they were married before they got those jobs, then there's little likelihood that he was able to use his position as her superior to coerce favors from her. But boy, I'd love to work on their team because I'm sure he never treated his wife better than the rest of the employees. It's especially unethical if they kept their relationship secret, not only from their specific team, but from the company or those above them in the management chain.

Re:He must be ugly

[BronsCon]

Your zero examples say otherwise.

So do yours.

And there's a bit of truth in what both of you have to say; a woman seeking a payday is more likely to pursue legal avenues even after the alleged harassment has been dealt with so you will find many more instances of that if you actually look. Most women (in my experience) just want to be treated like human beings and will only complain about conditions when they're not; and once the situation has been remedied, they're most likely to carry on like nothing happened. By and far, the ones who sue are not the reasonable type -- the whole purpose of civil courts is to sort out which party is the unreasonable one in a dispute; two reasonable people never sit opposite each other in a courtroom.

Re:He must be ugly

[BronsCon]

I know damned few fucking women that come to work hoping their boss or the guy in the cubicle next to them hits on them

And I know damned few men who hit on their coworkers. Sometimes asking someone out for coffee or a drink is just a means of getting to know them better, possibly for the purpose of building an understanding that allows them to work together better.

I do, however, know men who've been accused of sexual harassment for doing just that.

Re:He must be ugly

[ArhcAngel]

So, you agree with me. You just don't know you're agreeing with me because you didn't fully comprehend what I posted. I didn't say you had to act immediately. I said if you ignored it you would suffer bodily harm. The anger in your post indicates you've been ignoring it for an extended length of time.

Re:He must be ugly

[Jawnn]

It's also being viewed by a lot of women as a first-class ticket to unlimited media attention and a big fat legal payday.

Yep, this is the new way to make up for the perceived pay-gap women claim they experience.

It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy. Anyone can hang an accusation of racist, mysoginist, xyz-ist....and it will stick and often cost you as that you are guilty till proven innocent.

Spoken like a typical, entitled, sexist, racist jagoff.
No. Those things don't happen if you aren't a racist, mysoginist, or xyz-ist asshole. If you treat your employees fairly, and in a manner that makes it clear that you value them, word gets around. People want to work for you. Hell, they'll even go to bat for you because they value being treated fairly.

Re:He must be ugly

[swillden]

Your zero examples say otherwise.

So do yours.

Nonsense. So far what we have is zero evidence of any women getting paydays from allegation complaints, justifiable or not. Against that we have allegations that there are lots of unjustified paydays. It's on the maker of the claim to support it, not on the objectors to disprove it.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I met my wife and started dating her while she was my subordinate. Been married for almost 15 years now as a happy family with three kids!

Re:He must be ugly

[Hognoxious]

Did the person you're replying to top post?

Re:He must be ugly

[BronsCon]

So far what we have is zero evidence of any women getting paydays from allegation complaints, justifiable or not.

Oh?

That fact that there were very few justified payouts has nothing to do with...

That's your allegation that women are "getting paydays" from supposedly justified complaints.

Like you said, it's on the claimant to support their claim. Read the rest of my comment for my thoughts on which of you is right, and why.

Re:He must be ugly

[Darinbob]

Who's doing the disparaging? I don't think anyone gets free reins for that. I'm saying that as a white guy in a multicultural area, and I'm not seeing any blame, disparagement, racism, sexism, etc against myself. I am fully able to take advantage my privilege at any time.

Re:He must be ugly

[swillden]

That's why the very best policy is not to have affairs with subordinates, and it's why most modern policies either outright ban such relationships, or require that the subordinate move into another department so that they are no longer under the manager's direct supervision.

I think there's a less draconian option available, which I've seen be effective at several companies.

The policy should be to require that superiors who engage in a personal, and especially sexual, relationship with any subordinate have to report the relationship to HR. Though that's all that needs to be published in the employee handbook, HR policy should then be to take something like the following actions:

1. Establish a specific reporting channel for allegations of favoritism by the superior.
2. Inform the couple that any allegations of favoritism will be assumed to be true, unless proven otherwise, and that while this is guilty-until-proven-innocent policy is perhaps unfair it's a cost of having such a relationship. Also, that any HR action taken in response to allegations will fall on both, but primarily on the superior.
3. Make clear that in the event of a breakup, it will be the responsibility of the couple to maintain a good working relationship, and that any allegation of negative impact on the workplace will be similarly assumed to be true.
4. Make clear that any promotion, bonus, etc. for the subordinate must be approved by another manager and with oversight from HR.
5. Have the superior inform all of their other subordinates of the relationship, the expected non-impact on workplace dynamics, the additional career oversight, and the reporting channel to be used if any problems are noted, with explicit instruction that there is no need to discuss any concerns with the superior first, and that it's wholly appropriate to take them directly to HR. This meeting must be attended by HR.

Faced with this situation, most couples opt to have one of them change jobs, but I have seen several who made it work, at least while they were together. It only works when the superior is already seen as fair, trustworthy and mature by their subordinates, and when the subordinates are also capable of professionalism. I've never seen it sustained effectively after a breakup; always one or the other changes jobs.

Re:He must be ugly

[swillden]

I didn't say you had to act immediately. I said if you ignored it you would suffer bodily harm.

You shouldn't ignore it. You should recognize it for what it is and take care not to act on it. This includes watching your own behavior to ensure that you don't stare or do anything else "creepy". Don't pay either excessive or insufficient attention, don't either highlight or in appropriately ignore the target of your attraction's gender. In short, work hard to behave exactly as you would if you were not attracted.

If you need sexual release, by all means seek it out, just don't do it at work. If you don't have a social life outside of work, either because you spend too much time at work or because you're a couch potato in your off time, then focus on fixing that.

If you're really attracted to one particular co-worker, and if company policy and your roles don't make a relationship impossible, then you can pursue her... but only outside of work. This means you first have to find a way to see her in a non-work context, without stalking or some other creepiness. That essentially means you have to start with a very careful suggestion for non-work personal interaction that is clearly not a date, and to be completely prepared to accept "no" for an answer, and to consider it final. Note that business trips are work interactions, beginning to end. Once outside of the work context, you can test the waters for the possibility of a date. Again, fully prepared to accept "no" and to consider it final and binding. From there you can proceed, but with only with a focus on avoiding any spillover into the work environment. That doesn't mean you should keep it a secret; quite the opposite, because secrets get found out and promote suspicion.

If all of that sounds really hard, it's because it is. You're really better off doing your romantic socializing away from the workplace entirely.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I know when i want to know about all women's monolithic opinion, i come to slashdot to seek out AC opinions. Man, I wish I was a black immigrant, then my life would be on easy street, what with all that affirmative action I hear about.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

On behalf of ACs, it's not the best time to be a racist, sexist, white guy... But it's definitely still better to be that than any other -ist group.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

What, humans don't like attention? Humans love attention.

FTFY

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

You could probably say the same about many mammals too...

Re:He must be ugly

[Plus1Entropy]

It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy.

Oh my precious little snowflake, how hard it must be for you!

You assert a lot of stuff with no evidence. Must be fun, let me try: the opposite of everything you just said.

Re:He must be ugly

[taniwha]

for heaven's sake grow up - if you really believe this, and aren't just trolling, and have actually escaped your parents' basement, then stop posting as the eponymous Anonymous Coward

Re:He must be ugly

[swillden]

That fact that there were very few justified payouts has nothing to do with...

That's your allegation that women are "getting paydays" from supposedly justified complaints.

Nice misattribution. That was ShanghaiBill's comment, not mine. And he was wrong to say that... but the fact that he flubbed his response to the original claim that there are many women who've received unjustified payouts doesn't change the fact that that was the original claim.

Like you said, it's on the claimant to support their claim.

So, let's see some support for it. Though it was an AC that made the claim, not you, so it's really not on you to support it... unless you also are making the claim. Which your comment appears to imply. Are you?

Read the rest of my comment for my thoughts on which of you is right, and why.

Okay, let's take a look at what you claimed:

a woman seeking a payday is more likely to pursue legal avenues even after the alleged harassment has been dealt with so you will find many more instances of that if you actually look

There's a claim. Can you support it?

two reasonable people never sit opposite each other in a courtroom.

Never is an awfully strong claim, and a particularly hard one to support. Actually, it's plainly false, even without seeking specific counterexamples, because there's an obvious class of cases where it's false: any situation where the facts of the matter are in dispute can have entirely reasonable people on opposite sides.

Re:He must be ugly

[BronsCon]

You clearly got my point, so.... ok?

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanetta Gibson falsely accused Brian Banks of rape and won $1.5 million. Legally she is supposed to repay it but never will.

Emma Sulkowicz, the woman known as Mattress Girl, was invited to the State of the Union Address in 2015 by a Senator, among other benefits. She got criticism too, but certainly benefits.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

White men are easy to blame and get away with it.
Black men are easy to summarily execute and get away with it.
Also, this guy isn't white. He's just a creep who partners with other creeps

Re:He must be ugly

[ShanghaiBill]

That's your allegation that women are "getting paydays" from supposedly justified complaints.

Nice misattribution. That was ShanghaiBill's comment, not mine.

Nope. I never said that either. In fact, nobody said that.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

being the center of attention is every bit as important to most women. This is why there is the term "drama queen" and not "drama king".

Are you saying that Trump is actually female?

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

"Men admire other men..."

Oh please, come out of your Crossfit/Tough Mudder daze and wipe your friend's jizz out of your eye. Men belittle and degrade other men all the time.

Don't go for their football team? Have a chat to 'their' girl while waiting at a bar? Have the audacity to walk down the street minding your own business? Better prepare to be belittled, jeered at, shunned or otherwise "shown what hapoens".

I'm a male and I'm not impressed nor do I "admire" most other men I meet.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't know anything about biology. What a load of nonsense.

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked in a company with a husband/wife team in upper management. The husband was founder and CEO, the wife the HR director. She was getting paid a ton of money and barely ever showed up to work (she certainly never did any HR directing), but nobody could do anything except just pick up the slack. It sucked and caused huge amounts of resentment.

The wife was a tremendous bully, but there was nobody to complain to: the CEO just took her side on everything. You couldn't complain about the CEO, because the complaints all flowed up to the head of HR - his wife. There were a few favourite employees of theirs who get all the perks (I was on the edge of the in-crowd and had it pretty good most of the time - except for when I didn't).

Eventually it all fell apart, the company imploded, piles of key people left, the company was sold for cents on the dollar, and all the investors lost their money.

Never again.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with MightyMartian, and he is a well known sexual harasser. I've told him "no" a dozen times but he keeps grabbing my dick. I complained to HR, but he went to school with the HR director, so she threatened to fire me if I don't shut up.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

#baizou

Re: He must be ugly

[TheReaperD]

No self-respecting woman would be caught dead with her hair like that.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the exception, not the norm.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 2 separate situations in the case of workplace harassment, at least in my jurisdiction.

The first is unwanted sexual advances by a peer. This has all kinds of protections built in. For example, a "reasonable person" test to check if a reasonable woman would have reason to feel threatened by the unwanted advances.

The other kind is sexual advances of any kind by a superior. Because of the position of power and control over the other person's fate, any sexual advance may be considered workplace harassment.

Once you realize this, you realize that these guys are in the wrong. They wanted to be in charge, they have whole new sets of rules to follow.

If you want to get laid, get a tinder account. Don't go hitting on people who have to be in the same room as you and treat you nicely because you control their future.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

"white" is presently a politically correct group to attack and blame all our problems on.

There are marches, articles, TV shows, and so on all attacking the politically correct group.

Just like it was politically correct to blame Jews in '37, the blacks in '47, the gays in '67, "white" people -- whatever the hell that's supposed to mean -- are politically correct to blame in '17.

And just like with those other groups, the fact that they're politically correct to attack and that bigotry is wrong doesn't mean the group is blameless or that individuals can't be criticised. It just means that this focus on "the Boogeyman" we can blame for the ills of the world is both factually wrong and counter-productive.

I didn't realize any of this until a dalliance with the alt-right. Seeing them blaming Jews, blacks, and gays for their problems instead of themselves mirrored the buck passing I see amongst the "radical left".

That said, in this case a bunch of folks got themselves in trouble for breaking rules that apply to everyone. It isn't because they're white men, it's because they were hitting on people who only treat them nicely because of their position of power.

If they want to date, don't go to work in blackface, get a tinder account.

Re: He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Senility is setting in eh?

Re:He must be ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

> Are you all incapable of actually holding down a job that involves working with women?

For most American males, yes. Their parents are retarded, religious, the schools encourage the behavior/don't give a shit, sexual education is back to the 1950s at best, and that's assuming that you're white and in a suburb. Then there's the heroin epidemic, the rampant racism problems from republicans, conservatives and the police, the increase in renting, raising college costs, medical costs, etc.

And those are all things that affect people in their free time, to say nothing of the normal everyday working conditions.

> Are you that emotionally-driven that you can't just do your goddamned job and treat your coworkers with dignity and respect?

For most Americans, yes. Some bakers can't be bothered to make money on a gay wedding cake (and apparently that's a legal issue), Fox News has convinced millions that terrorism has killed billions and facts don't matter.

For most Americans, their job is glorified babysitting (for being done by and/or for them). Almost no one actually does any work, because the incentives aren't there.

Daniel Tosh made a good point in his 2016 People Pleaser special - 90% of Americans have jobs, and considering the average American, that's either terrifying and/or comforting.

> Whether it's sexual harassment, or any other kind of harassment, any boss who doesn't take that seriously is asking for goddamned trouble, up to and including costly lawsuits.

The fact is that most lawsuits get settled, there is *purposely* vague legal language about what constitutes a criminal act, and most allegations never get to a lawyer, let alone a courtroom. You're right that it *should* be a huge deal, but in most places, it isn't. Just remember that the legal system only "works" *because* it isn't constantly swamped.

Judges can only be pushed to decide things on the merits for so long, without a concrete legal framework.

>If you can't keep it in your pants, literally or metaphorically, then a judge will make you.

I wish. Trump got elected, and there so many absolutely terrible people that are also judges out there that this is more likely than not to be the case.

Last Week Tonight on Elected Judges:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8

Re:He must be ugly

[david_thornley]

Just saying that the category of "white guy" is the only one that people are completely, 101% free to disparage, and attack without impunity these days.

I've seen other categories of people disparaged with the same freedom. Muslims, fat people, poor people, Native Americans, to name a few. Some people will object to it, but then some people will object to disparaging white men. It may be that you notice disparagement against white men more than disparagement against other groups.

Re: He must be ugly

[david_thornley]

I'm glad that it worked out. Sometimes it doesn't, and the consequences can be pretty bad.

Were you able to treat her the same as your other subordinates? Did that interfere with your dating life? (There's often boss-subordinate friction.) Did your other subordinates think you were fair? Did she ever feel that, if she ended the relationship, she'd be treated differently as an employee?

You could have destroyed your effectiveness with your other subordinates. You could have been sued successfully for sexual harassment, if you implied that the continuing romantic relationship was significant in any workplace decisions. You could have been in trouble for promoting your lady love or giving her a raise. Your company does not have any direct interest in your sex life. They do have a direct interest in your performance as a manager, ability to stay out of sticky personnel relationships that require company attention, and ability to stay out of lawsuits.

Re:He must be ugly

[houghi]

I know of as situation where a CEO had an affair with his married secretary. To top that her husband worked in the same company and after the relationship became public decided to stay married and kept working for the same boss.
No, I have no idea why and I do not want to know.

You know what also gets attacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

MY BALLS!!! Suck 'em, nerds!

Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the whole point of Ayn Randian freedom? Do anything, ANYTHING to get enough 'fuck you' money, and afterward any harm you cause to others is justified by the money you are able to sucker from others as a holy sacred right?

Re:Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

How "Ayn Randian freedom" works is that this guy is hurting badly now, may lose his job, and may lose tons of money, because other people are choosing not to do business with him.

That's as opposed to, say, sociopath, serial harasser and abuser of women Bill Clinton, who used political power and the power of the state to protect himself from suffering the consequences of his abhorrent behavior and has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to his former government position. And people like you are so clueless that they actually wanted to put his co-conspirator, his sociopathic wife, Hillary Clinton, into the White House.

Ayn Randian freedom doesn't necessarily prevent sociopathic assholes from gaining power, they do that in a free market just like they do it in a progressive state or in a social democracy. The difference is that under Ayn Randian freedom, you can get rid of sociopathic assholes, why under the progressive state sociopathic assholes are protected by their power and position.

Re:Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

That's as opposed to, say, sociopath, serial harasser and abuser of women Bill Clinton, who used political power and the power of the state to protect himself from suffering the consequences of his abhorrent behavior and has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to his former government position. And people like you are so clueless that they actually wanted to put his co-conspirator, his sociopathic wife, Hillary Clinton, into the White House.

Ayn Randian freedom doesn't necessarily prevent sociopathic assholes from gaining power, they do that in a free market just like they do it in a progressive state or in a social democracy. The difference is that under Ayn Randian freedom, you can get rid of sociopathic assholes, why under the progressive state sociopathic assholes are protected by their power and position.

You're seriously saying that in the era of Trump? Along with a paragraph of partisan attack? This is why sociopaths are justifiably feeling so empowered and invincible.

Re: Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah except that doesnt happen under Ayan Rand freedom either. It's about as much of a pipe dream as glorious communism.

Don't do business with the guy already holding all the cards? And he'll lose tons of money? Lol, free market idealists must smoke some good stuff.

Re: Sociopathic freedom

[that this is not und]

If there were activities, rather than braggard locker room talk, to use to take Trump down, he wouldn't be President. He is vulgar and boasts of things he is seriously not capable of, and he is a media personality, which means the groupie effect comes into play.

Clinton meanwhile, is a documented serial sexual predator. Similar to how Microsoft is a documented monopoly, with an established body of evidence.

There are too many spring-loaded mechanisms in place these days that would pin Trump down, like a bug on the collectors cardboard, for him to be anything more than a loud vulgar braggard. Actually he's kind of a cuck in that regard. Bill Clinton is NOT a cuck. He's more of a monster. Swinging dicks can and do admire him for how well he's gotten away with it. Women who profess to be feminists admire him. What the fuck, eh?

Re:Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

You're seriously saying that in the era of Trump? Along with a paragraph of partisan attack? This is why sociopaths are justifiably feeling so empowered and invincible.

Well for one, sociopaths don't use terms like "empowered". No one with any kind of actual power uses that term. The same way billionaires generally don't talk about "the rich" or "the 1%".

Secondly, sociopaths feel powerful and invincible because the people who put up with their shit are too meek to speak the one language sociopaths truly understand: force. Torches and pitchforks is - historically - the only way to actually get rid of them in the short term. Valuing something other than money and power, as a culture, is the only way to keep them out of positions of power in the long term.

Re:Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

...and then get so butthurt when reasonable people call them on their bullshit

Re:Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

You're seriously saying that in the era of Trump?

You mean the era where we didn't elect a sociopathic, corrupt harpy to be our next president? You bet!

This is why sociopaths are justifiably feeling so empowered and invincible.

I doubt the Clintons feel "empowered".

Re:Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for one, sociopaths don't use terms like "empowered".

Hillary Clinton loves to talk about "empowerment", and Hillary Clinton is both a sociopath and insanely rich.

No one with any kind of actual power uses that term. The same way billionaires generally don't talk about "the rich" or "the 1%".

Plenty of billionaires talk about "the rich" and "the 1%" and how they should be taxed more and their power restrained... billionaire progressive Democratic donors do. They don't care, they aren't in "the 1%". The 1% are doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Billionaires are the 0.001% and they don't have to worry about what happens to "the 1%".

Secondly, sociopaths feel powerful and invincible because the people who put up with their shit are too meek to speak the one language sociopaths truly understand: force. Torches and pitchforks is - historically - the only way to actually get rid of them in the short term.

Sounds pretty much like every socialist and fascist movement throughout history.

Valuing something other than money and power, as a culture, is the only way to keep them out of positions of power in the long term.

But money is what progressives primarily value, both a the individual level ("we were broke when we left the White House") and at the political level (inequality).

Thanks for illustrating how progressives = sociopaths.

Re: Sociopathic freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah except that doesnt happen under Ayan Rand freedom either. It's about as much of a pipe dream as glorious communism. Don't do business with the guy already holding all the cards? And he'll lose tons of money? Lol, free market idealists must smoke some good stuff.

Did Bill Clinton serve out his terms? Did he go from one government job to the next with impunity? Indeed he did, despite his massive sexual misconduct.

Justin Caldbeck had to resign simply because his business feared a negative impact from keeping him. He was kicked out not for people refusing to do business with him, but for the simple potential that people might refuse business with him.

If you think that government works better at punishing harassers, you are completely out of touch with reality.

Read the TFA...

[__aaclcg7560]

This guy is whining about whiners. I guess he's looking for cheese to go with his whine.

Re:Read the TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, he's not even a "tech boss". The guy runs a financial firm, not a tech company.

Re:Read the TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

No amazon affiliate links to your favorite wines, cheeses, crackers, and noise-cancelling headphones, creimer?

Re:Read the TFA...

[Holi]

When your industry runs on venture capital, tech bosses tend to be financial firms.

Re:Read the TFA...

[__aaclcg7560]

No amazon affiliate links to your favorite wines, cheeses, crackers, and noise-cancelling headphones, creimer?

According to Amazon, their number one best seller is the Cowin E-7 Active Noise Cancelling Wireless Bluetooth Over-ear Stereo Headphones for $69.99 (list price is $199.99). Never tried them myself. YMMV.

Re:Read the TFA...

[Darinbob]

A tech boss generally knows zilch about tech. Which is what is wrong with the entire venture capital system.

Re:Read the TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is generally, the guys that know about tech? Don't know shit about marketing, selling, etc, which is why they labor as "engineers" and the like for a pittance (comparatively speaking vs their actual contributions to the bottom line). Every once in awhile, you get a Woz who strikes it rich, but if you've ever read an interview by Woz or folks like him, you can see that they lack a certain "it" when it comes to vision or selling a vision. Which is why we talk about Jobs and not Woz most of the time. And to be a VC, you gotta have the money, and because engineering types generally don't have "vision" as a strong point, they don't really get into the game. No, they stay conservative, keep their money locked up in low-risk investments, and leave the VC to the Type A sociopaths that are looking to get even richer than they currently are.

Re:Read the TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

!guy
Whiner! whining about whiners.

Re: Read the TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tech workers of the world, unite against the VC oligarchs who have stolen our future. You have nothing to lose but your 80-hour work week and forever-a-renter status.

Re:Read the TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you know more than I do about VC, but your statement is true about so much of American corporate life. CEOs are financial engineers, completely divorced from whatever their companies do. Even Ben Stein once wrote a column (don't know why I saw it, I don't follow him, but I do read business sections) deploring CEOs who are essentially pirates, boarding companies, despoiling them of booty, and then going on to the next one.

chat as though the moms are watching

[Anonymous Coward]

cease fire stand down,, that's the spirit...

"not my job to make you all feel good"

[Anonymous Coward]

YES, IT IS. Glad I could help you out with that. That's EXACTLY the domain of the CEO.

"Mr Teo has already offered to resign." Great, done and done. Get a real CEO.

Re: "not my job to make you all feel good"

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, no it's not.

The job of a CEO is to increase shareholder earnings. If making people feel happy happy is profitable to the shareholders, then sure. But if hiring a yacht full of hookers and playing circle jerk the dick into the donkey will make shareholders feel better, then that works too. CEOs have absolutely no responsibilities to anyone who works for them. Their job is to make more money for the shareholders.

Right now, there are a bunch of women (and maybe men) who know that if they throw on some fishnets and wrap some Botox around a penis they can get start capitol from this firm. They call it an early return on investment.

To be honest, if you choose to do business with a VC, you're already choosing to work with an opportunistic asshole. I suppose there is a small number of legitimate VCs out there, but a VC is in business to make money. They aren't there to do nice things or be nice people. They are gamblers that instead of using their money to actively be part of building something, they put as little money in to achieve the highest returns off of someone else's work. They don't care if you succeed, they only care if they can sell their share for more than they paid.

Re: "not my job to make you all feel good"

[arth1]

First of all, no it's not.

The job of a CEO is to increase shareholder earnings

No, it's not. There may not be any shareholders, or the shareholders may be the employees, but even assuming it's a publicly traded company with a capitalist charter, it's not. Selling all assets and allotting all proceeds as dividends would immensely increase the shareholder earnings. Investing anything in research will always reduce shareholder earnings with no guarantee of later increased earnings.

The CEOs job is to execute on the visions of the owners or board of directors. That might mean spending money to increase the chance of long term survival at the cost of short and medium term profits.
Or it might mean building a hugely expensive new head offices, because that's the vision of the board.

Re: "not my job to make you all feel good"

[Darinbob]

This particular CEO appears to have had a public drunken meltdown. Which certainly sends a very bad signal to the shareholder, leading to the offer to resign.

Re: "not my job to make you all feel good"

[Anonymous Coward]

Their job is to make more money for the shareholders.

No, it is not. You have obviously never founded and grown a company. I have. Making more money for the shareholders may be one part of the job. It also may not be. It varies from company to company as well as over time.

The CEO's job is to make the company, and the people working there, do what the owners and the board has decided is to be done.

That can include many, very different, things.

Re: "not my job to make you all feel good"

[Anonymous Coward]

A very apt description of why CEO is Chief Executive Officer. Furthermore, from my experience good CEOs of publicly traded companies actively discourage the majority of their employees from worrying about the stock price. Focusing too much on stock price can easily cause people to seek short term gains at the expense of greater long term gains.

Fuck the whiners!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck all these whiny women and their bogus claims of sexual harassment. Why can't these bitches understand that men will be men, and sometimes they will make passes at them? Of course, they're also the first ones to complain to their friends that they're not getting any attention. SAD!

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Special Olympics of trolling. This is the best you can do? Pathetic.

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[Anonymous Coward]

What have YOU done to support the troll cause around here? Nothing, I bet.

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Special Olympics of trolling.

As a former contestant in the Special Olympics, I am offended by your remark. You should attend sensitivity training.

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Special Olympics of trolling. This is the best you can do? Pathetic.

Got you to reply, so I guess it worked.

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former contestant in the Special Olympics, I am offended by your remark. You should attend sensitivity training.

Cartman, is that you?

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[spun]

No, that's not the way it works. A troll which is called out as a troll does not get to claim said response constitutes a success. Only a response which does not acknowledge the trollish nature of a post constitutes a successful troll. You can't just declare yourself a winner, there are rules, and you're not Charlie Sheen.

Re: Fuck the whiners!

[that this is not und]

Just a rough fish, though. Lots of those drying along the shoreline already. Only good for fertilizer or to give to the cats.

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can taste the salt from here.

Re:Fuck the whiners!

[spun]

It doesn't work like that. I can give you some lessons if you want. Lesson one: you just responded to my troll, therefore, I won. See how that works? That'll be tree fiddy.

But isn't he right?

[elrous0]

This guy isn't accused of doing anything wrong. The guy who *was* accused has resigned. Right?

So why is it this guy's job to constantly apologize for the actions of someone he had no control over and who has already been forced out of the firm? It's not his fucking fault his former partner was an asshole.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not his fucking fault his former partner was an asshole." Yes, it is. That's what "partner's with" means. It means you have a joint stake in things and the actions of one affect the other.

If you're married to a serial killer and you find out about things, YES it IS your job to turn them in and apologize for their behavior and explain yourself. YES, IT IS.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously not. It directly falls on him, where else would it go? He was either ignorant of his business partner or accepting, either way, this certainly falls in his lap. Acting indignant later does not change this.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad he then accused the leaks to be an attack against the firm and to drive investors away etc etc and in effect dismissing the claims as being entitlement driven. So it seems he's contributing to the same attitude that makes harassment okay. If he didn't have to apologize before, he sure as hell as to now.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you turn then in. Explain yourself? Why? Were you also killing people?

Re:But isn't he right?

[Holi]

Yes explain yourself.

"I just found out" - All's cool you reported a murderer right away.
Otherwise you are an accomplice and yeah that needs lots of explanation if you want to avoid repercussions.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is it this guy's job to constantly apologize for the actions of someone he had no control over and who has already been forced out of the firm?

Because he's the CEO. That's exactly his job, along with a large dose of, "Here's how we're going to make sure this never, ever is permitted to happen again here...." And also to take care of his employees and clients and make them feel emotionally good about working there and investing with them. That's. His. Job.

And his outright hostility towards the notion of a woman filling his job, covered up under a pathetic excuse of "we need the best person period" platitude, shows he is as much of the problem as the person who left. In short, he needs to go beyond the "I offered my resignation," to, "I have resigned and asked the board for relief at the earliest opportunity."

Re: But isn't he right?

[that this is not und]

You explain why you watched and did nothing. It isn't that difficult. It's a little humbling but it builds character. To do anything else ropes you in, in a bad way, as we see here.

Re:But isn't he right?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

YES it IS your job to turn them in and apologize for their behavior and explain yourself.

Actually, in many jurisdictions, your legal obligations regarding your spouse (or even other close people) being prosecuted are more limited than in case of other people being prosecuted. More, not less, as you seem to suggest.

Re:But isn't he right?

[HornWumpus]

I'm betting the only thing keeping this place's funds open is lack of liquidity.

Anybody expecting rounds to be funded there in the future is going to face disappointment. Which will suck for those female clients that did 'suck'...you know there were some.

It's now just a holding company, while the process unwinds.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're married to a serial killer and you find out about things, YES it IS your job to turn them in and apologize for their behavior and explain yourself. YES, IT IS.

How about if you're married to a serial harasser and abuser of women? You know, like Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton?

Re: But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to be a real dirt bag to turn your wife in, even if she was a serial killer.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because somehow filling his job with someone who isn't the best person for the job will be the greatest outcome for everyone. In some universe.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in many jurisdictions, your legal obligations regarding your spouse (or even other close people) being prosecuted are more limited than in case of other people being prosecuted.

Yes, exactly. This is just one more reason for the gays to demand equal marriage rights. They are entitled to them.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Aighearach]

You're legally shielded from having to testify against them, but that doesn't change your moral or ethical responsibilities.

The reason the law is that was is because of abusive prosecutors, and only that. If you let lawyers go after the spouse, they'd do it every single damn time.

There is certainly a moral responsibility to take action if your spouse is a serial killer, though going to the authorities is perhaps not a clearly acceptable solution. What people expect you to do in that situation is not something they will be willing to spell out for you.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't get your legal advice from Arrested Development.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Constant apologizing is nobody's job. Keep your shitty fantasies to yourself.

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Married to a serial killer? What is this, a competition for who can imagine the stupidest analogy?

Re:But isn't he right?

[Anonymous Coward]

what kind of a$$hole can flag this as "insightful"

fucking shills

Re:But isn't he right?

[david_thornley]

Looking for the best man for the job is not the same as looking for the best person for the job.

TL;DR version straight from TFA

[Kergan]

"If you were teaching PR 101 this guy has just done everything possible wrong. He has insulted clients, he has insulted investors, he has insulted employees and he has insulted the media.

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like he's ready to become president of the United States.

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing missing is a billion dollars.

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to need a few bankruptcies before he can declare that he has that.

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[serviscope_minor]

Only after he's gone bankrupt too.

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Obama

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[WallyL]

Or orange hair!

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody went to jail for Wells Fargo, or the 2008 financial crisis (OK, one scapegoat), Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and Skrehli was indicted, not has not been found guilty yet.

Cops kill people, on camera, in cold blood, in the streets.

The President is a corrupt retarded mob boss.

The assholes are coming out to play. PR 101? Let me know when the opinions of social science professors *actually* matter. Republicans are *still* convinced that the Kansas tax cut plan will work, especially on a national scale.

Re:TL;DR version straight from TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Laughing Out Loud here.

He needs to quit--immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexual harassment isn't whining, it's a fucking legal issue.

If he can't deal with issues in his company he doesn't need to get permission to resign, he needs to stop whining himself and just fucking quit.

Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Many men feel emboldened now that Trump was caught on camera bragging about assaulting women and then was rewarded for it by being elected President (although not with a majority of the popular vote).

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[tsqr]

Opinion stated as fact. Nice work. And regarding "not with a majority of the popular vote", give it up. You sound like a football coach complaining that his team lost the game despite gaining more rushing yards than their opponent.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[phayes]

Oh puhleese...

Trump's election does not change the generations long movement to political correctness that has taken over in the U.S.'s corporate culture.

Trump was NOT my choice for president & I am all for sexual equality and an end to harassment in the workplace.

When even an innocuous appreciative but not lecherly comment comment like "nice dress" on the one day a co-worker wears something particularly attractive is deemed sexual harassment, the movement has gone too far.

Yeah, yeah, keep pointing to the exceptions and strive to make people believe that ALL athletes/VC execs/geeks are sexual predators.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, right? Ever since Trump got elected, I've been grabbin women by the pussy every chance I get! But they don't mind because I'm rich and good looking. That's the thing, if you're rich and good looking, women don't mind if you grab 'em by the pussy.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how so many of them hang around /. comment forums just waiting for sexual harassment articles so they can spout bullshit about how the woman deserved it and how its obviously untrue and all she's doing is suing her way to the top.

Fucking moronic mouthbreathers, these are the fuckheads I suckerpunch with a smile while I go about my day

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a fact that Trump was caught on camera bragging about assaulting women and it is also a fact that he didn't win the popular vote. Those are two undeniable truths.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Many men feel emboldened now that Trump was caught on camera [talking dirty] and then was rewarded for [being slightly less awful than his opponent] by being elected President

Not as emboldened as when Bill Clinton got away for decades with abusing his office for decades to harass and physically abuse women, while his wife lied about it and shielded him from the consequences.

Fortunately, she was not rewarded with the presidency.

Hillary's defeat has indeed emboldened men to speak up for themselves. Good thing too.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Darinbob]

But you have to say "not with the majority of the popular vote". That's because it makes Trump turn orange with anger. And when Trump turns orange with anger you get some very entertaining tweets at 3am. And entertaining tweets from the president at 3am keeps this economy running!

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Yyyeeeaaahhh because men NEVER EVER EVER spoke up for themselves before Trump. Riiiiiiiiight.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how so many of them hang around /. comment forums just waiting for sexual harassment articles so they can spout bullshit about how the woman deserved it

We're waiting for "news for nerds, stuff that matters", and instead we're getting this social justice crap. It makes us cranky.

Fucking moronic mouthbreathers, these are the fuckheads I suckerpunch with a smile while I go about my day

No doubt you do. It's how your movement works.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[swillden]

When even an innocuous appreciative but not lecherly comment comment like "nice dress" on the one day a co-worker wears something particularly attractive is deemed sexual harassment, the movement has gone too far.

Whether that's harassment depends. Do you also compliment your male co-workers when they dress nicely? If your female co-worker indicates that she's uncomfortable with the compliment (even non-verbally), do you stop saying such things?

If the answers to either of those questions is "no", then yes, it's harassment, and that has nothing to do with any "movement".

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[phayes]

When even an innocuous appreciative but not lecherly comment comment like "nice dress" on the one day a co-worker wears something particularly attractive is deemed sexual harassment, the movement has gone too far.

Whether that's harassment depends. Do you also compliment your male co-workers when they dress nicely? If your female co-worker indicates that she's uncomfortable with the compliment (even non-verbally), do you stop saying such things?

I can and do indeed compliment my co-workers appearance whether male or female and without fear of overbearing PC considerations, but then I've been living in France for 30 years. The bullshit where it's not what you say but how someone chooses to hear it never took root here, thankfully.

Does that mean that I can be a knuckledragging cad with my comments? No and there are penalties here for true harassment -- but not for the overbearing PC workplace environment that has become prevalent in the U.S. and that is mocked by my co-workers both male and female. As I'm the only American this and other American excesses come up regularly.

If the answers to either of those questions is "no", then yes, it's harassment, and that has nothing to do with any "movement".

How amusing that you're so deep inside the PC police state that you cannot even see it. Innocuous comments and even more so, an off color remark is only harassment and sufficient cause for a lawsuit in the U.S & less so in the U.K. Here, the PC gender police do not have the upper hand so it needs to be much more systematic.

I've counselled a few co-workers through some harassment. For one, a co-worker with whom innocent flirting was second nature (& a joy to be around) was harassed by a knuckledragger who refused to accept that flirting!=desire that his continued hitting on her and increasingly explicit sexual innuendos were unwanted which led to his spreading rumours that she was sleeping around. THAT was harassment & I'm proud to say that he lost his job in part thanks to my testimony.

Oh yeah but you go ahead and label "nice dress" harassment... If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny.

Re:Many men feel emboldened now that Trump

[david_thornley]

Not as emboldened as when Bill Clinton got away for decades with abusing his office for decades to harass and physically abuse women

You're going beyond the evidence there, pardner. Bill Clinton was clearly a big jerk, but he rarely if ever went over the legal line.

Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[mishehu]

I could swear this site is getting more and more like those rags you see on the shelf at the supermarket checkout lines. Quick, better go buy a copy of Us or the National Enquirer!

Re:Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the news, don't blame the newspaper.

Re:Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

your a doosh

Re: Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[that this is not und]

Or complain if the newspaper you are used to buying seems to have more and more lurid content lately. Just "not buying it" abandons something you might have a part in correcting.

Re:Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Darinbob]

Haha, if you don't like the news then don't buy the National Enquirer!
If you don't like the news then don't buy People magazine!
It's too bad that bat boy isn't in the news anymore, none of the lamestream media ever bother covering bat boy.

Re:Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Darinbob]

So that's a woosh for the doosh.

Re:Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

As Scoop Nisker says, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."

Re:Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Aighearach]

BatBoy has an exclusive media deal with Weekly World News, if you want to read about his latest exploits that is the only place that is going to have a clear shot. It is the same as Spiderman and the Daily Bugle.

Re: Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an organized demoralization campaign.

Re:Did I just get teleported to the supermarket?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could swear this site is getting more and more like those rags you see on the shelf at the supermarket checkout lines. Quick, better go buy a copy of Us or the National Enquirer!

You must be new here.

Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

- Stay small
- Hire no women

Re: Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

ðY'ðY

Re:Recipe for success

[MightyMartian]

Or, you know, just keep it in your pants like an adult. I have worked for most of my life with women, some as bosses and supervisors, some as equals, and some as subordinates, and I've never had any issues at all.

Re:Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

Bu... Bu... But mah burin' loins!

Re:Recipe for success

[spun]

Judging by the bitter, entitled comments here I can only imagine that many Slashdot posters are unable to get their sexual needs met, and thus are walking around in a constant state of sexual frustration.

Re:Recipe for success

[MightyMartian]

I get hte impression here that many posters are stark raving terrified of women, and incredibly resentful. I imagine there are all sorts of interesting psychological reasons for these feelings, though I confess I can't quite understand them. As I said elsewhere, I've worked with women my entire working life; they've been my bosses, coworkers, and subordinates, and while I've seen my share of antisocial behavior, I never saw women having any great predilection for that kind of behavior than men. I get that when the two sexes spend a good deal of time together, there's bound to be a certain amount of sexual tension, but we are all supposed to be adults that can manage our feelings and expectations, and understand what is appropriate or inappropriate in a workplace.

But here the hate and resentment in some circles is just profoundly disturbing. I suppose some of the posters are just genuinely afraid of women, don't really understand them, don't spend any time around them, and thus easily fall into believing in some sort of "us vs. them" narrative that is becoming rather common in men's rights circles. Some perhaps have had bad experiences, and I admit when I've personal relationship problems, it's easy to fall into an emotional and overly generalized view of the opposite sex as being somehow complicit in my own problems. But again, I'm an adult, I manage these feelings, recognize them as wrong and prejudicial, and get over my own hangups.

Re:Recipe for success

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Or, you know, just keep it in your pants like an adult.

Wasn't that the "stay small" part?

Re: Recipe for success

[that this is not und]

Grandparent commenter was expounding their personal formula for success. Which is fucked up, but oh well. At least they were only able to do so anonymously.

Re:Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the same people be "stark raving terrified of women" and not able to "keep it in your pants". People that are terrified of spiders don't go around trying to make pets out of them. People with combat PTSD do not get excited at the idea of being shot at again.

You are trying to rationalize your hatred and bash a group that isn't responsible because they are an easy target.

I'm an adult

Then start acting like one.

Re:Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

...or you could just whip it out and let it hang like a CHAMP!!!

Re:Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

thus easily fall into believing in some sort of "us vs. them" narrative that is becoming rather common in men's rights circles.

You should see where else that narrative is 'becoming rather common'.

The answer is everywhere.
The fact you assign it towards one particular group is rather telling.

Re:Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

"People are strange when you're a stranger / Faces look ugly when you're alone / Women seem wicked when you're unwanted / Streets are uneven when you're down."

Re:Recipe for success

[MightyMartian]

I didn't say those exhibiting fear of women were hitting on them. What they're doing is claiming that sexual harassment is a-okay, and some of them are even laiming that it's the woman's fault.

Re:Recipe for success

[Aighearach]

If they have internet and still can't figure it out, there is no hope at all. They obviously wouldn't know what to do if their fantasies were available to them.

Re:Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

Great move for waiters, when you wear an apron. Double tie it.

Makes dealing with asshole customers, liveable.

Re: Recipe for success

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you imagine your deranged anti-sex white knighting will get you laid?

Re: Recipe for success

[spun]

Most of us don't really have any problems in that department, skippy. It's just you and the other losers who even have to think about things like that. The rest of us have wives, girlfriends, or significant others. When you aren't an anti-social wreck of a human being, getting laid is simple and easy.

It is your job

[whoever57]

As the head of this company, it is his job to motivate employees. Otherwise known as "making them feel good".

This is yet another child with money.

Re:It is your job

[TemporalBeing]

As the head of this company, it is his job to motivate employees. Otherwise known as "making them feel good".

wrong.

Motivating someone does not necessarily mean making them feel good. As the head of the company his job is to ensure the company is on the right track to do what the owners want the company to do. Yes, that includes keeping morale up, but it does not necessarily mean making all the employees feel good. It may very well at times mean the exact opposite.

For example, if an employee leaks data - even harmless data - then the CEO may call out all the employees in letting everyone know of the bad behavior. That's not going to make everyone feel good; it'll likely anger many. But it's healthy and required to do so.

"Feel good" leadership is solely an SJW concept - and one that fails in the real world. It's also most employed by Gen-Y and Millennials as they were raised with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "can't hurt your self-esteem" mentalities.

Re:It is your job

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Study after study shows higher productivity over the long term if you keep people happy. Meaning cookies work better than threats. For the leak meeting, it would be better to talk about how the company does awesome things and that leaking info might cause them to stop being being able to do awesome things rather than telling them that leaking will get you fired and everyone should be watching each other to catch anyone doing something incorrectly. The first way creates a team, the second way creates distrust.

Feel good leadership came out of scientific and physiological research. Make people feel important while kissing your ass and they'll gladly do it all day and night. Just like if you save someone from a horrible situation they'll love you for it, as long as they don't realize you put them into that on purpose just to get their undying love. It's also where all the 'you have to be passionate' bullshit comes from too.

Who do you think were implementing those 'everyone gets a trophy' policies? It wasn't the gen-y and millennials, they were the targets not the source.

Re:It is your job

[hey!]

I agree that making employees feel good isn't an end in itself -- particularly making them feel good all the time. There are times when you,as boss, have to make certain employees feel bad. "Leadership" is just another word for "emotional manipulation".

That said, working under competent and effective leadership tends to lead to success and that tends to be rewarding for people. If everyone around you is worthless, the problem is almost certainly you.

After decades in business, I am heartily sick of put-upon managers. It's almost like bragging: despite my good-for-nothing employees, look at how I'm muddling through! And I always think, "why not hire better employees?" It's not that hard: pay a little more, choose a little more carefully, treat the good performers with respect and regularly clear out the deadwood. And yet, while I've met countless put-upon managers in my career, I can count on one hand the ones who made any kind of concerted, systematic effort to hire and retain the best people, and all of them were very successful.

The only conclusion I can make is that those armies of put-upon managers are actually more comfortable with dysfunction and mediocrity. Most bosses are their own worst enemies; which means as a group they're exactly like most other people, just in a better position to force their personal emotional drama on others.

Re:It is your job

[TemporalBeing]

Who do you think were implementing those 'everyone gets a trophy' policies? It wasn't the gen-y and millennials, they were the targets not the source.

True...it was primarily Baby Boomers acting out of the 1970's love fest, and following advice from people like Dr. Spock; people that themselves were part of the 1970's love fest and are a root of a lot of the issues in psychology today.

Yes people will tend to do better in a good environment. But that doesn't mean you cater to making them "happy". Happiness is not something that can be quantitatively defined; it is a qualitative subject and very subjective. What makes on person "happy" won't necessarily make others happy. So while an employer should make a good environment that overall enables people to be successful, keeping them "happy" will not do that.

Re:It is your job

[TemporalBeing]

I agree that making employees feel good isn't an end in itself -- particularly making them feel good all the time. There are times when you,as boss, have to make certain employees feel bad. "Leadership" is just another word for "emotional manipulation".

That said, working under competent and effective leadership tends to lead to success and that tends to be rewarding for people. If everyone around you is worthless, the problem is almost certainly you.

Quite agree. But that doesn't make it your boss's job to make you "happy". Their job is to motivate you to get your work done - happy or not. Yes it is to their benefit to help keep your morale up, etc; but that's a matter of how they want to lead, and what kind of team/company/etc they want to have.

Companies tend to behave like their C-level execs. If those execs are back stabbers, distrusting, etc - it'll show all the way down; and it takes a long time for a new exec team that's not doing that to change the culture to get it out *if* they are successful in doing so; some companies have it so ingrained that the company will die before it changes.

Re:It is your job

[Anonymous Coward]

It is his job to make you happy. Because if you're not, you don't work there any more and the manager has nobody to manage and their job is nonexistent.

If it's nothing to do with making the workers happy, then the work of the manager is merely accountancy. Which for the business is done by an actual certified accountant.

So get rid of the manager, especially the CEO. They do nothing.

Re:It is your job

[hey!]

Strangely, I have found many people who continue working for a boss that makes them unhappy.

American Hicks trying to flirt = sexual harassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans are more like barbarians trying to emulate a civilized person when flirting -- which can be very uncomfortable for those around them.... it is not about good looking or bad looking.... it is about being uncoordinated hicks trying to flirt which can only end badly... hence sexual harassment .... even when the intention was just to flirt. (There is of course sexual harassment that is was just an abuse of power as well).

He's got a point

[Anonymous Coward]

All the whiners should stfu. Whiners aka SJW's are working hard to impoverish the world's supply of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers. Instead of whinging why don't the SJW's start their own companies? Is it because they lack the intellectual capital, or because being a parasite provides a more comfortable existence?

Re:He's got a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the self-referential demonstration of the point you seemed to be trying to make.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

And folks will still hand over money to him. There is a LOT of stupid money in Silly Valley all looking to hit it YUGE on that unicorn.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigly?

Re:American Hicks trying to flirt = sexual harassm

[Holi]

Number 1 rule, DON'T FLIRT AT WORK, it's not why you are there and it's not what your employer is paying you for.

Gee, whining about whiners ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that's really taking the high ground.

free games online

[hinaajmal]

free games online at http://ambestreview.com/

"Don't Whine"

[dmomo]

... he says. In the whiniest way possible.

Let's retort.

[HBI]

Toxic work cultures are at least equally the fault of women. Let's look at motivations:

Men want to get laid, and/or want to dominate women. This is done for reasons of personal satisfaction and/or pecking order (though it is unlikely to result in a work benefit, e.g. promotion) and/or unhealthy obsession with demeaning women. Men like workplace dating because it's easy - "delivered pussy" is the term.

Women want to lure men in to having sex with them. This is done for reasons of pecking order (and in this case it could result in economic benefit due to promotion) and/or a feeling of belonging somewhere and/or economic reasons and/or a desire (healthy or unhealthy) for attention. Women like workplace dating mostly because it allows them to almost entirely transcend class differences, which would be hard to do in their social circle outside work.

Somehow, you think this is all men's fault because they have 'power'. This is false on multiple levels. The women have to buy into this. All superiors aren't men. All women aren't innocent of wrongdoing. The #1 cause of sexual harassment complaints is jilted women. The men in question may or may not have been predators, but the sexual harassment claims prima facie look identical.

So are you just willfully blind in regards to female culpability?

Re:Let's retort.

[MightyMartian]

I think the very idea of ascribing specific sexual behaviors to one gender is absurd, and utterly unfounded, and another example of how some posters on Slashdot seem to believe this bizarre notion that all women are whores and all men are testicle-driven morons.

My company's policy doesn't have gender specific language. It outright bans harassment, so it is irrelevant whether the harasser is a man or a woman, or the victim is a man or a woman. What counts is that the company will not tolerate the behavior, and that it has disciplinary mechanisms at its disposal up to and including termination of employment. Your myths about motivation are irrelevant, pretty much false, and would do the company know favors if it got called into court over a harassment lawsuit.

Let me ask you. Can you keep your feelings to yourself? Can you gently rebuff someone who comes on to you? Can you control your urges, get through the day, and not hit on coworkers?

Re:Let's retort.

[Rakarra]

Those are some pretty broad strokes you're painting with.

Re:Let's retort.

[Anonymous Coward]

The #1 cause of sexual harassment complaints is jilted women

You're just making shit up.

You're conflating workplace dating with sexual harassment and saying both parties are equally to blame.
When it comes to sexual harassment, the blame is entirely on the harasser and has no place in any setting. It's especially bad in a workplace, since the person with power tends to think they are entitled to treat people this way and the person being harassed is forced to work with that person - until they either quit and/or file charges.

Re:Let's retort.

[HBI]

We have generalizations because they communicate something meaningful.

Re:Let's retort.

[Interfacer]

Women want to lure men in to having sex with them. This is done for reasons of pecking order (and in this case it could result in economic benefit due to promotion) and/or a feeling of belonging somewhere and/or economic reasons and/or a desire (healthy or unhealthy) for attention. Women like workplace dating mostly because it allows them to almost entirely transcend class differences, which would be hard to do in their social circle outside work.

Yeah absolutely. That's what women do. They're just trying to catch me unawares and fall on my penis. If I'm not careful I've had 2 blowjobs before I make it out the parking lot and every time I pass by the copy machine there's a woman bent over it trying to get me to accidentally do it to her doggy style. I have to avoid elevators no matter what because they'll hit the emergency stop button and reverse gangbang me before they let me out on my floor.

It's horrible.

Re:Let's retort.

[DNS-and-BIND]

An absurd absolute is a restatement of the other personâ(TM)s reasonable position as an absurd absolute. For example, if your point is there is high crime in Detroit, the absurd absolute would be your debate opponent saying something such as âoeSo, youâ(TM)re saying every person in Detroit is a criminal.â When your debate opponent recasts your opinion to include an âoeabsoluteâ word, such as every, always, never, all, completely, universally, and the like, you are seeing cognitive dissonance.

Some people call what I just described a strawman argument. But a strawman argument refers to any sort of inaccurate recasting of your opponentâ(TM)s argument. That is the generic case. Iâ(TM)m referring to a specific strawman argument that uses an absurd absolute. When your debate opponent recasts your point as an absurd absolute, you won the debate. Thatâ(TM)s as far as you can go.

How to know you won a debate on the internet

Re: Let's retort.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, are they hiring over there?

Re:Let's retort.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Slashdot seem to believe this bizarre notion that all women are whores and all men are testicle-driven morons.

Doesn't help when this tripe is sitting at a +5.

Re: Let's retort.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too close to the truth, clover?

Re: Let's retort.

[MightyMartian]

So you think men are by nature little more than rapists?

Re:Let's retort.

[david_thornley]

Men want to get laid....Women want to lure men in to having sex with them.

You seem to want to imply that these are different things.

Dumping David Bonderman was SO dumb..

[TheNarrator]

David Bonderman has made a career of succesfully turning around many failing companies. He has made billions buying struggling companies and re-working their operations and building them into successful companies. He's one of the few "good" venture capitalists out there who actually puts money to work rebuilding failing companies instead of just stripping their assets. He's one of the few people who could have figured out how to save Uber. He made one sarcastic comment and gets some controversy and he just said screw this whole thing, I'm out and left and that's probably going to lead to the death of Uber. Good job, you idiots.

Re:Dumping David Bonderman was SO dumb..

[Darinbob]

Do we need Uber? It has plenty of competition ready to step up with better leadship and higher ethical standards.

Same here

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck my boss too. Totally, 100% unsupportive. He'll say he'll do something, and never follows through. NEVER answers emails, and basically lives in his own petty bubble

Honing his skill set.

[fahrbot-bot]

From TFA:

"If you were teaching PR 101 this guy has just done everything possible wrong. He has insulted clients, he has insulted investors, he has insulted employees and he has insulted the media.

Next, he'll be running for President.

Re:American Hicks trying to flirt = sexual harassm

[Darinbob]

If you're not able to find time to flirt outside of work then maybe shorten your work hours. Don't they have weekends in your part of the country?

Hrmpph!

[thegreatbob]

I read his response as "I'm incredibly sorry ... that someone called me out on bad behavior."

accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

If a person knows something is wrong and doesn't take any steps to correct it, that person shares in the guilt of it.

Basically, the "I don't do it" doesn't mean jack. And in the example of the murderer, yes it is a crime not to turn them in [barring certain exemptions].

In the case of the senior partners. The partners in ANY organization are responsible to help mentor their peers. Since Mr. Teo is not accepting any responsibility, then the question arises "is he doing it as well". More than likely, the answer is yes, he just hasn't been caught yet.

How can I say that? By his lack of action and the tone of his e-mail.

Re:accountability

[Aighearach]

I would take carry the first part of your analysis into the second and say that if he's a partner he is responsible, and so if he's not "accepting any responsibility" then he is already doing whatever "it" is, as an accomplice and that he has in fact been caught out.

Maybe you're just not interesting to them

[HBI]

I venture to say others don't have that problem. Including me.

Welcome to the "wonder" world of business

[p51d007]

Thanks to political correctness, you can't even comment about someone "looking nice" anymore without being written up. Women, those wanting to climb the corporate ladder at any cost, will do ANYTHING to get themselves "noticed", going so far as to make allegations against a coworker. The problem with sexual harassment is that unless you have proof, it's a he said she said issue. But, with the Gloria Allreds of the world waiting for a chance to pounce on a microphone & camera, and, the media looking for another "juicy" story to help cover the 24/7 news cycle, it turns into a political circus.

Re:Welcome to the "wonder" world of business

[marcle]

Thanks to political correctness, you can't even comment about someone "looking nice" anymore without
being written up. Women, those wanting to climb the corporate ladder at any cost, will do ANYTHING to
get themselves "noticed", going so far as to make allegations against a coworker.
The problem with sexual harassment is that unless you have proof, it's a he said she said issue.
But, with the Gloria Allreds of the world waiting for a chance to pounce on a microphone & camera, and,
the media looking for another "juicy" story to help cover the 24/7 news cycle, it turns into a political circus.

I assume you're a guy. How often do you tell another guy that he's "looking nice"?

Re:Welcome to the "wonder" world of business

[Gilgaron]

Mostly it is career suicide to complain. Even if it is justified, everyone still walks around on eggshells past the person who complained, they realize no one trusts them anymore, and leave. The only exceptions seem to be when the harasser is so well known around the office as one that when someone finally complains everybody and their brother knows someone else who had been harassed and everyone shrugs and says "good thing they finally got rid of that person, they're a creep". Still haven't seen it result in glory for the person that got the hammer brought down.

Re:Welcome to the "wonder" world of business

[Aighearach]

Thanks to political correctness, you can't even comment about someone "looking nice" anymore without
being written up. Women, [blah blah blah].

I assume you're a guy. How often do you tell another guy that he's "looking nice"?

When he wants to harass somebody for wearing cargo shorts, presumably.

Re:Welcome to the "wonder" world of business

[ooloorie]

I assume you're a guy. How often do you tell another guy that he's "looking nice"?

Every now and then. And like with women, it's completely non-sexual. Women do it too.

Now try this one: how often do men run around in a professional context with their chests visible, or with codpieces, or in tight short pants, or with makeup? That sort of thing seems to be acceptable for women, but it is not acceptable for men. Double standard?

Re:Welcome to the "wonder" world of business

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you're a guy. How often do you tell another guy that he's "looking nice"?

Every now and then. And like with women, it's completely non-sexual. Women do it too.

Now try this one: how often do men run around in a professional context with their chests visible, or with codpieces, or in tight short pants, or with makeup? That sort of thing seems to be acceptable for women, but it is not acceptable for men. Double standard?

I wouldn't know because I don't normally go around staring at guys' crotches so I can evaluate how tight their pants are. And seriously, makeup? Next thing you know, you'll be saying women need to stop shaving their legs too, because not only can you see their legs, it's just too much for you to handle.

Re: American Hicks trying to flirt = sexual harass

[leonbev]

I'd imagine that most strippers and Hooters waitresses would disagree with this statement.

Man Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

When Man Boys are given loads of money, they act just like children, only worse.

Start vetting for immaturity and this behaviour will stop.

Re:American Hicks trying to flirt = sexual harassm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah they do but we have to work them just to keep the lights on.

You can use those same facilities ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use those same facilities to relieve the - ahem - pressure that builds up in your - ahem - little brain.

You are welcome.

was thinking about posting, so i did anyway

[vel-ex-tech]

Scrolling through the comments. Just wow.

Looks like we've got a bunch of boys over here giving feminism and the misogynerd narrative plenty of ammo by freely admitting that they're unable to control their own urges.

Additionally, the little boys over here seem to be more than willing to allow feminism and the media to frame the narrative such that these sexual harassers are technologists in technical careers.

Fail.

trump won you buffoon

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost. GET OVER IT!

Carefull what you wish for

[ghoul]

I remember the White House Correspondents dinner where Obama mocked Trump and basically dared him that if he doesnt agree with Obama run for President. Well Trump took him at his word.....

It's not difficult

[dbrute]

I don't think anyone has ever been branded a sexual harasser simply for complimenting a dress or someone's looks. If you're not adult enough or self-aware enough to understand how to speak to other people without making them uneasy -- then keep your mouth shut. The same applies to most situations in life actually.

Good: "Hey Shelly, that's a cool outfit"
// you're into her - and have an inkling that it's reciprocal
Good: "Hey Shelly, that's a really pretty outfit, your eyes almost sparkle when you're wearing it."
Bad: "You look really sexy in that outfit", "Your tits look amazing in that shirt", "damn you look fine"

But hey, does communication with the opposite sex only have to occur when objectifying?

Better: "Shelly, that was a really nice bit of code you wrote for the indexer last week. I saw the check-in and liked that you improved the response time by 3ms!"

It's so much better to simply treat people as ... people. You talk to someone you like as a person and you know what.. you'll gain their trust, grow to respect each other, and maybe you ask them out when you're off work at a shared interest event (that you've learned about.. by talking to them). It's honestly not that hard to be normal and not stalker-y. All that nonsense in the comments about how tough the struggle is to control your sexual impulses is about the stupidest thing I've read today. It's on par with "baby, we need to do this or I'll get blue balls" -- and I've used that line myself in my early years. The implication is that the same or opposite sex are in some way responsible for relieving or satiating this desire. Go squeeze one out and get over yourself. For the record, that line never worked for me and I usually felt stupid later.

True maturity is treating the people around you as actual human beings. You tend to form healthy and meaningful relationships that way.

Re:It's not difficult

[gymell]

I agree, it's pretty easy. Treat people like people. Think before you speak. Would you say it to your mother/daughter/sister/grandmother, etc? Would you want someone saying it to your mother/daughter/sister/grandmother, etc? If not, think about why that is. Because the woman you're talking to is someone's mother/daughter/sister/grandmother, etc. A person, not a sexual object that you're entitled to.

Re:American Hicks trying to flirt = sexual harassm

[Scarletdown]

Meh, I could do without flirting. I figure why play those little head games? If you are interested, then say so. And more importantly, say why; as anyone taking such an interest in me has to be either desperate or damaged.

Non-affiliate link

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B019U00D7K

I don't know a lot of dudes

[rsilvergun]

that comment on folks cloths unless they're way out of norm. I can't remember the last time a guy said 'Nice Shirt' to me without following it up with 'got an interview today?'. It's just not something guys do. Girls do, but not guys. So when a guy does it, well, it's so odd it's automatically suspect. It's got nothing to do with PC. It's just weird, and everybody knows it.

Also, since when is fostering a work environment where women can feel comfortable something bad? I'm reminded of that Niel Gaiman quote (you can google it). If you want to talk exceptions, please stop bringing up the feminazi that gave you a D in your community college English course that one summer. She doesn't represent the American left any more than the KKK do the right. You've got your nut jobs, we've got ours. Difference is we largely marginalize ours. You just elected one president.

Re:I don't know a lot of dudes

[phayes]

Define "norm". I've worked in some pretty varied environments including language schools, AI workshops, factories, fashion & tourism. "norm" is all over the place and in places like language schools, fashion and tourism where gays are a majority of the men, comments on some extravagant clothing can be more than a bit off color -- oooohh sexism... but it's not, because this is France, not the U.S.

Was working in those environments a problem for me even when when being on the receiving end of more than a few innuendos from men & women? No. Redress was available for cases where comments devolved into harassment but NOT for simple complements or a bit of ribbing the way it has become in the U.S.

I'm not talking about or influenced by the feminizi in college (never went to college in the U.S. so I never met her), i'm referring to your fear of having what we here in europe consider normal workplace relations between men & women -- but thanks for revealing what seems to have been a factor in how _you_ think that workplace relations must be - colourless, sexless and where nobody can say that "(s)he hurt my feelings". The wave of PC gender police forcibly neutering and thereby diminishing the scope of male-female workplace relations thankfully never took hold in France and describing our more vibrant intersex workplace cultures to americans has become like describing colours to the blind. You have been taught well by the PC gender police and cannot conceptualise that anything else can be normal or acceptable.

So, Macron is a nutjob? Must be for desiring an older woman who, HORRORS, was once his HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER as in the U.S. one or both of them would have gone to jail and both would have received life-long sex offender status. Here? It's not an issue and they are happily married.

Lead

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a boss!