But then articles like these come out. Wow. These are some of the kingpins of Silicon Valley shown sexually harassing with hard, factual evidence. I had no idea.
That constant murmur is the sound of a thousand stories like this that don't (yet) have the coordination to hit the pages of the NYT at the same time and become "credible". A month ago, there were dozens of female founders sitting on stories like this who were still afraid to go public. And they were afraid because good, decent people like you, who "had never seen anything like it" would "dismiss it out of hand" if they told.
(Obligatory disclaimers: You don't need to believe every story 100% unconditionally, but "a constant murmur" = "multiple corroborating sources" and should not be ignored. Also, I want to praise rather than criticise the parent comment, because acknowledging why we were ignoring these stories is a vital first step to not ignoring the next one we hear.)
Edit: Although really, what stronger evidence will you ever get? I suppose you could get a personal account from someone you trust (but that's not something you're going to hear if you're in the habit of brushing off such stories - most commonly, "honey, are you sure you're not just misinterpreting him?"). Barring that, a constant stream of similar rumours is the only evidence of a problem like this you will ever hear - until there is a "Susan Fowler event". Update accordingly.
* One needs real and credible evidence to carry through with depriving another person of any liberty or property.
* Probable cause never trumps or adds to evidence -- if you investigate and find nothing, that's it.
One of the most confusing and unfortunate memes of the past year is this "believe women" stuff, because it confuses strong suspicion with proof. If these cases show us anything, it's that there is plenty of real and credible evidence -- no need to go on intuition or suspicion.
...the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't
like it is not actually how the legal system (or
culture) works.
It certainly depends on your position relative to the person; but many people who are in a position to do something are also in a position to investigate -- they can take correspondingly stronger action, on the basis of an investigation.
For example, Teo had plenty of resources available to him, if he wanted to follow up on the rumors he had heard. He just chose not to do so.
The same is true at Uber: within the company there was a wealth of information available, and it was certainly feasible for Kalanick and many other people to look into the available complaints, emails, performance reviews and transcripts to determine if something was amiss.
It is true that people outside of Uber, and people not as well connected as Teo, would not have these resources available -- but then again, those people are not actually going to go into Uber and start firing people (for example), though they might refuse to associate with people they had heard rumors about.
When you say "we should treat 'a constant murmur' as much stronger evidence than we currently do.", I would ask you, evidence with regards to what? What would you do based on this kind of evidence?
Um, no?
There's a constant murmur of racism in SV companies. I haven't seen that at all. In fact, the opposite. Doesn't mean there's no racism, but I'd rather have actual examples before I buy into that line.
There's a constant murmur of ageism in tech companies. I haven't seen that either. Plenty of people over 40, over 50 in tech. Fewer over 60, but this is a newish field still.
I've managed to go some 20 years in tech without seeing hardly any guys openly hit on girls at work -- except a couple of cases where they're now married. So why should I just "_believe it_", before reading stories like these recent articles?
(Compare catcalls. Female friends I trust tell me this happens to them all the time. Around me? ~Never. But that's cause it happens when I'm not there. Extrapolate.)
I'm not doubting the stories posted in these articles. But I'm not going to believe something just because there's a "constant murmur." There was also a constant murmur that Obama hated America, etc.
Your catcalls example is not a "murmur," it was people you know, telling you what happened to them. That's different.
But still, there's lots of "constant murmurs" that don't pan out, and in many cases they're driven by agendas. It's easy to make or perpetuate claims when there's no attribution, no specific examples, etc. Just vague innuendos.
So if some vague innuendo is contrary to my personal experience, yeah I won't believe it as fact.
Kudos to these women for bringing VC sexism out of the realm of murmurs.
The poster above me said (and emphasized) that when there's constant murmurs, you should _believe it_. Very wrong. Keep an open mind, but don't "believe" it outright just yet.
(I guess it's a cultural thing from their two-party system or something)
For example, if on your team of 20 engineers you have 3 women, then your team is already above the national average.
It's for the same reason you can think there's systemic racism in the American policing system without thinking that your cousin is racist because they're a cop.
It almost certainly does.
One of the easiest things men can do to help is collect those stories anonymously, curate them, and share them broadly. (For example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/at-google...) Women shouldn't have to bear the brunt of the burden of making the majority believe them.
Accusers always bear the burden of providing evidence.
What people need to do is actually reserve their judgement. There's no need to choose sides when it's two people's words against each other.
For a victim, it's great to speak up, even with no evidence, in the event that there is a pattern and other may speak as well, like with what's happened with Bill Cosby. But if you have no evidence, people shouldn't just believe you but they also shouldn't call you a liar.
The rush to judgement is toxic.