I'm a creep. I'm sorry | Hacker News Reader

I'm a creep. I'm sorry

500hats.com

321 pointsduellsy398 comments

A lot of people here seem to not understand the power imbalance point, so I'd like to explain it.

Imagine you're in these positions: --Being arrested, and an officer makes a romantic advance --On trial, and the judge makes a romantic advance --In therapy, and the therapist makes a romantic advance --At the doctor, and the doctor makes a romantic advance --At the bank, and the banker makes a romantic advance --In a restaurant, and the waiter makes a romantic advance --At work, and the cleaning staff makes a romantic advance --In class, and the teacher makes a romantic advance --Buying a car, and the car dealer makes a romantic advance

Obviously each of these situations is a little different, and the appropriateness of flirting in each situation is a little bit different (for example a therapist will lose the ability to practice for life if they date a client, e.g. Dr. Phil).

When you consider why some of these are obviously wrong (cop, judge, therapist, teacher) it's because the individual in question has a responsibility to make a neutral judgement call that will have a meaningful impact on your life.

Now I'm not saying I have the answer to this, but I think we need to begin the discussion by establishing some principles.

It's not necessarily about power imbalances - subordinates might express interest in a superior, or a colleague might interest in another colleague, and both situations can be just as problematic as a superior expressing interest in a subordinate.

The problem is simply one person deciding to single out another person for any deviation of expected treatment especially when it has no relation to the social context or work performance/duties.

Hitting on a coworker is potentially as problematic as inviting a coworker to church. Being extra friendly to a coworker or customer of a different gender is just as problematic as being nasty and disrespectful to a coworker or client of a different ethnicity. Every scenario mentioned is grounds for making the person or possibly even those next to the person uncomfortable, leading to harassment claims. Furthermore, the idea of only behaving a certain way if the other party consents is a lack of principle. It potentially jeopardizes the protections a workplace is supposed to provide to all workers and customers. Just because a door is left open does not mean one should enter.

I don't think dating coworkers is wrong. I think making somebody uncomfortable with clumsy/forceful/persistent advances can be bad though.

But let's say you like somebody at work, so you talk to them, and you both enjoy the conversation. Then you eat lunch together at work a few times. Then you invite them to get drinks after work as a group. Then you continue to hang out when the rest of the group has gone home. Then you ask if this person would be interested in getting drinks in the future. If anybody has a problem with that I don't see why.

So again key differences: - Power imbalance - Advances on the first time you meet somebody (no evidence of reciprocity) - Advances during the job - How aggressive the advance is (a compliment? touching? inviting to a date? lewd comment?)

The problem with dating a coworker is that when they break up with you, you have to see them everyday.

That is more a life and operational issue, not a legal/abuse/harassment issue, to be fair.

Actually a breakup can turn into any one of those situations. One person can begin spreading rumors and propagating lies about the other person, or begin leaving harassing messages. Workplace morale can be severely affected. Co-workers lives can literally be in danger because of how one person in a workplace romance interprets behaviors.

You really have to understand the perspective of a company to know why any form of singling out an employee for any type of reason, including dating or romance, is a potential legal landmine.

You personally may think dating coworkers is fine under some circumstances, and so may the other person potentially involved, but others not involved and observing may find it unacceptable under any circumstance. One goal of the workplace is to ensure equal treatment and equal protection to all of its workers under any and all circumstances.

A quick google suggests that nearly 40% of people have dated a co-worker, so to say it is wrong under any circumstances seems a silly.

The lengths that companies will go to protect themselves from lawsuits is silly, but at the same time necessary given the potentially problematic behaviors and motivations of certain employees.

You know a large percentage of long-term relationships start in an office setting.

Inviting a coworker to church is a problem? Can someone elaborate please?

It's rude to assume someone else wants to go to your church, is into your sect of your religion, is into your religion or is religious at all. It's dangerous when you combine that with power structures from a work or other environment.

>it's rude to assume that someone else wants to go to your church

You're not assuming anything, you're asking them if they want to come. They can always just say no. Not everything has to be the end of the world. Of course you could make up tons of situations where this could be inappropriate (I heard you had a drinking problem, would you like to try church instead?) but I think in general it's a safe question.

The askers' perception may be that it's a safe question, but there are too many situations where the question is dangerous. Do you really want to have to identify as muslim or non-chrich goer when working and living in the Redstates? Do you really want to have to identify as non-religious when everyone around you is? Will your religion - or lack of - transmit your political leanings, which are opposite to the others around you?

The invitation to a (particular) church can come across as part of a package of high pressure to conform to the rest of the team. I've received these invitations while living in the US, and yes, it was very uncomfortable.

If the invitation is from someone in power over the receiver then it may be received/perceived as an order.

Isn't it also rude to assume they don't want to go?

If only there were a way you didn't have to assume, but could find out...

This may be a cultural thing, but inviting someone to go to church would be at least astonishing in France (and the rest of Europe). This is just not the place you go for a date.

There could be some circumstances where this is possible ("hey, my church has its annual fiesta, plenty of people dressed up in a traditional way - you know, the famous one! Wanna come see that?", or a marriage/baptem/other family / friends gathering) but this is not the first place which come to mind when thinking about dates.

I agree.

Inviting someone on a date to church does seem odd. But what about the following:

Co-worker "What did you get up to this weekend".

Me "Just the usual. Lazy Saturday, church took up most of Sunday, what about you".

Co-worker "Not much just watched a few movies. You go to church? Really?"

Me "Haha yeah I do, you're welcome to check it out if your interested."

In some countries that still plays very badly and it could change your relationship forever.

In the USA, which is an extraordinarily religious country versus other Western countries, the response is likely to be more nuanced, but there are sill the many matters of which religion, sect and so on to consider. Going to a (particular type) of church risks being seen as a political statement as well. Best to avoid.

Ah I see. I guess location context is important. It seems odd to me as I live in NZ a very secular country, with little to no political implications of church attendance.

If anything I'd expect to get ridiculed for believing in something science couldn't prove.

I live here in NZ too, and yes we have to be careful the other way - not to ridicule someone else's belief. There are a lot of religious people here, but religion is not something that people take to work.

I had a high school German teacher who said politics and religion were two taboos for polite American conversation, but Europeans can have more civilized discussion about these topics.

Is this not true?

It is, but religion is not a very trendy subject.

Politics yes, and I would not say that it is very civilized, so people avoid it not because of political correctness (so to speak) but rather because these discussions tend to get heated.

I'm European and I can have super uncivilised discussions about these topics.

Otherwise, yeah, but I think it matters a lot what crowd you hang out with. The USA is a big place, and so is Europe.

> You go to church, really?

is something you will never hear from civilized people in France, not in that context.

People will discuss religion as part of a general discussion, but context is everything.

We need to legalize prostitution so that an investor or manager who has these fantasies can play them out with professional help. If we viewed prostitutes as a form of health therapist and gave them professional respect rather than keeping them in the black market a lot of these guys could work out their power issues with a trained sex professional instead of creating these nightmares for innocent women who just want to do a great job or run a successful startup.

You're assuming these guys see this as a problem. I suspect for most of them, the power issues are, erotically, the whole point. Why patronize a prostitute for make believe alpha male abuse of one's position when one has the real thing every day?

> Why patronize a prostitute for make believe alpha male abuse of one's position when one has the real thing every day?

Because it's a lot less likely to get you in trouble (if we make it a lot less likely to get you in trouble).

Given the frequency with which VCs have gotten in trouble for this before this week, that doesn't seem like an important consideration.

I'm not certain I'm interpreting your comment as you intend. Do you mean that this happens a lot and people have rarely got in trouble for it?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Plus, if it really is a power thing, then paying for the prostitute immediately screws that up. They're paying, so they know it's not as real as it would be if they didn't.

Maybe if you could pay prostitutes for them as a third party in some way, that could work.

We need the Uber of prostitution!

Agreed, prostitution as a profession should be seen more as a therapy, than as a playground for men to exploit their darkest sexual desires. I mean, if you read some of the horrific experiences prostitutes undergo, it'll leave you with disgust. Bottomline, we men have to learn to treat women with respect and equality, regardless of their profession, period. This is portrayed superbly in Pretty Woman.

Treating it as a profession rather than keeping it in the black market would probably go a long way towards reducing the horrific experiences.

A trained sex professional? Are there schools for this sort of thing? How does one get “training?”

Plenty of places have legal prostition. It doesn't mean that bosses don't get sued for sexual harrasment.

(Prostitution should be legalised anyway, but maybe not for that reason)

Another perspective - the reason some of the situations above are inappropriate is not about the impact on you.

Rather, it's because some of the examples are situations where you are forced by law to interact with those people, and have no alternative.

From my "libertarian" perspective, the situation with the police officer, judge at a trial, the teacher, and probably the doctor are clearly the most offensive, because the state gives them tons of power over me without me being able to get out of it. (The doctor situation is kind of dependent on how healthcare works in your country).

The other examples are less clear cut. A waiter hitting on someone - no problem IMO (usual caveat here - it's still bad if persistent after rejection, done with pressure, etc). At work with co-workers - generally ok assuming it's done in a non-pressuring way, and there's no power imbalance (which wouldn't make it not-ok necessarily, again, depends on the situation). Car dealer - no problem.

> it's because the individual in question has a responsibility to make a neutral judgement call that will have a meaningful impact on your life.

The other reason: Sometimes an issue goes your way when you sleep with the powerful person. A cop decides to let you away with a warning, a boss gives you the job, the bank manager grants the loan/mortgage, the teacher gives you a good grade. (And conversely, you can be punished if you don't sleep with them)

If we want a real meritocracy, we need to stop flirting in the office.

Is it just me, or is committing public seppuku like this really necessary? If what he did was illegal, he should face prosecution. If he's compelled to apologize and admit his guilt, he should reach out to the people he actually wronged. This kind of public self-flagellation ("I'm such a creep. Please forgive me, world.") feels really over the top, phony, and symbolic.

It did read cringe-worthy to me. But then again, the allegations are much more so.

Totally agree. There's something very weird about this post. If I were truly faced with the sudden realization that I was a deeply shitty person, I can't imagine writing a post like this. I'd be off the grid entirely, probably drinking in a ditch some place. I know I can't speak for others and everyone is different, but the human element is missing here somehow. It does feel very PR.

His career depends very much on his reputation, and his reputation was just dragged through the mud over the past week. It's difficult to know whether this introspection and contrition is genuine, but his post is all about salvaging his name.

Even if it isn't genuine (and it appears genuine to me) then it's a step forward for a Silicon Valley head to recognise their actions are wrong.

Buy will these yesterday's PR moves work in the much more cynical world of today?

His firm will demand that he write a post as part of his professional duties.

It does seem an awful lot like the same old narcissism that probably played a big role in the harassment and maybe even the drive toward entrepreneurship and investing in the first place. They're all just different faces of the same thing.

Business narcissism is a matter of making much of one's own achievements.

Sexual narcissism is a matter of making much of one's prowess/attractiveness (and being tone-deaf to what, to everyone else, would be obvious signs of disinterest on the part of the other party).

Narcissism in disgrace is a matter of making much of one's own mistakes, and one's own suffering. I realize the following is reaching a little bit, like your high school English teacher, but: Notice who appears (twice) in the title.

Not reaching at all. I was trying to put my finger on what felt off about this while reading it. I think you've got it exactly.

It reads like an apology on the surface, but it feels more like bragging and attention seeking.

My reaction would be more similar to yours than Dave's. But he's a public figure, with a blog and twitter and people that know him and stuff, so I guess in that position, people start asking "why aren't you posting something?" rather than "why did/will you post something".

I think it's because he wanted to pepper in details like "It was over drinks and I thought it was social", aka actually defend his actions while renouncing them on the surface. The "upcoming discussions" with 500 associates reads like he's looking to get back onboard.

I immediately thought odd it was to meet like that over drinks with a group of people. That's never not been social for me.

So I'm glad he painted a picture.

There are dozens, hundreds of events ranging from meetups to conference parties to pitch events to just about everything else that often involve drinks or going out for drinks immediately before/after with other participants. Whether that's "social" or a "professional" setting is hotly debated but regardless, it's the norm. Throw in social media and it is very easy (still not appropriate) to blur lines.

If you have a job where you are working 12 hour days and weekends, your job is your life. I am actually curious when would an actual appropriate time to ask someone on a date might be - clearly the second someone brings up professional stuff, it should be out the door, but the veil of that can be breached with a simple "what have you been working on lately"

If you're working 12 hour days and having trouble with your social life, the problem is _not_ that it's not OK to hit on women in a professional setting. The problem is that you're working too much.

Stop bringing gender in to this. You can ask someone out during an after-hours social event without it being wrong.

What's wrong is retaliation based on those things happening.

If you think I'm the one who brought gender into this, you're either ignorant to the structural realities of our industry, or you're willfully being obtuse. If it's the former, let me be the first to tell you that men have most of the power and it's no accident that in the story this post reacts to, it's the men in power committing the abuse and not the other way around. Not to say that women can't be inappropriate at work or whatever, but if you're looking to promote equality, "both sides do bad things" is not the right way to do it in this case.

The structural realities of our industry are that men are the majority at all echelons. Men have most of the power and men are most of the subjects.

Ignoring half of the equation to paint women as a unique victim class is disingenuous, and ironically, it is a power move. Topping from the bottom.

HR taking the company's side... A superior leveraging their position to extract concessions rather than engage a person on equal ground... These are universal problems. Twisting everything into a gender issue because of sexuality involves the automatic assumption that a woman's sexual virtue is something special and any other abuse of power is just not as big a deal. A very gender essentialist and conservative position.

As an actual leftie, it should make me sad, but tbh it amuses me to no end in its absurdity. In the name of progressive politics, all sorts of traditional views are being promoted. Men should be chivalrous, women need protection, public shaming is good, morality must be enforced by a clerical class, with everyone else kissing the ring in acquiescence. Bizarre.

As if politics are far more built-in than we want to admit, and freedom and tolerance can become labels for the exact opposite.

Are we demonising specific behaviours, or power imbalances in general, or just one gender?

Do exploitative power imbalances fade into political and economic background noise when they're "only" about money and/or hierarchy, and no dating or sex are involved?

Do "uncomfortable feelings" around dating and sex have a paradoxically privileged place in this discourse, over "uncomfortable feelings" caused by more overt forms of verbal, financial, political, or legal abuse - and if so, why?

> when would an actual appropriate time to ask someone on a date might be

If you are in a position of power over another person, I would say there isn't an appropriate time. The number of hours you work isn't really relevant.

Put it this way: when is an appropriate time for a college professor (that works long hours!) to ask a student out on a date?

> when is an appropriate time for a college professor (that works long hours!) to ask a student out on a date?

A student generally or one of his students? There is a difference. And not too long ago a professor dating a student that he/she didn't have power over was not that uncommon.

> And not too long ago a professor dating a student that he/she didn't have power over was not that uncommon.

There are a lot of things that are not uncommon, but are still totally inappropriate.

What's inappropriate is for a third party to decide when and when not two adults can have a private relationship.

Wait a second, if there is no power inbalance, how is it inappropriate? Are we merely arguing about social mores without any reason?

> > And not too long ago a professor dating a student that he/she didn't have power over was not that uncommon.

> There are a lot of things that are not uncommon, but are still totally inappropriate.

Sorry! I was responding late at night, and, even though I quoted it, I totally missed tanderson92 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14680337) 's caveat "that he/she didn't have power over", which, of course, totally changes the ethics.

(It still doesn't seem persuasive to me to argue the ethics of a behaviour in terms of what used to be common, since it is still true that a lot of awful things used to be, and still are, common; but my comment was mostly based on a misinterpretation.)

You don't have an answer because you're not applying hard logic and rules but slippery moral constructs that revolve around the right people/outlets signaling that you need to be outraged.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone on a date. If they say no? Cool. Yes? Awesome. The act itself is not criminal, actions taken based on that (like retaliation) are.

Demonizing basic human behavior has no place in western society.

"If you are in a position of power over another person, I would say there isn't an appropriate time."

Is neither illogical nor slippery moral construct. If you disagree with the rule, you should find better argument then just calling it "not hard logic enough".

On related note, if hiring manager asks for dates regularly, any hired women will be assumed less competent and assumed to sleep her way to success - no matter what her response. It is not like these accusations were far away for good looking women, they are pretty much guaranteed in this setup.

That is not cool.

If you make more money than another person or can possibly benefit them in some way or the person is attracted to you then you are in a position of power. You're argument is absurd and out of touch with the human nature.

This is a troll comment, right? I'm can't really tell anymore (sign of the times).

Don't ever assume so. The amount of Marxism that runs rampant on Hacker News cannot be underestimated.

> "It was over drinks and I thought it was social"

It is horrifying that world leaders and public figures use this kind of excuse, which is supposed to somehow give a pass, and then we see it trickle down to the man on the street.

Really, the public figures should be prosecuted and made an example of, so that is the example for the average man. Anything less is unacceptable.

I think his use of "I fucked up" while on the one hand it makes it seem like he's acknowledging the seriousness of the incidents, on the other hand it signals that he still has an issue with social convention and knowing what is appropriate and not.

One does not go up to someone you owe deference and include the word "fuck" specially given the kinds of allegations and confirmation, in your apology. Understand social convention and understand respect. It's like he's apologizing to one of his "bros".

I looked him up on YouTube. This is simply how he communicates. I guess he started out thinking it would make him sound decisive and effective and now it's internalized. The reason he does it is that he's insecure, like a man speaking with a lower tone than is really his own.

What's more horrifying, that people are human and make mistakes, or that if you're "important" what would normally be one-off mistakes forgotten and buried become career-defining events thanks to the collective shaming capacity of the internet.

>people are human and make mistakes

Our legal system is not forgiving of people that make mistakes.

"I accidentally fell asleep at the wheel and killed someone" = manslaughter = prison.

What this person did is very wrong, and everyone who does it should be punished, regardless of their obscurity/fame.

Actually, one-off mistakes for the poor are not forgotten and buried, they translate to brutal imprisonment and abuse for years. The wealthy (i.e. "important") get away with permanent collective shaming and it's a complete joke compared to the horrors the poor have to face.

Classic non-apology apology. "I'm sorry you were offended".

Classic self righteous morality police.

"He didn't apologize good enough!"

Self righteous? I didn't make any value judgement. Just called it a bullshit apology.

I think that qualifies as a valuable judgement

So.... literal a judgement not based on objective data, but a subjective interpretation of the meaning behind his words.

Totally not a value judgement.

To classical something as a "bullshit apology" is to cast a value judgement!

A value judgement if I ever heard one..

This is bullshit. This is a lead paragraph:

I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate. I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong.

There isn't any equivocating there. Dave acknowledged what he did was wrong, and took responsibility. I'm not saying he's some sort of great guy for apologizing, and he deserves to face the consequences of his actions. I am arguing that if people sincerely acknowledge their mistakes, and take steps to make amends, demands of "you're apologizing too much/not enough/wrong" are just vengeance and are not actually going to fix the problem in the long run.

It wasn't though - he specifically noted his actions were wrong every time. It was very specifically an apology for his actions, not for offense caused alone.

I think it's less about the people involved and more about setting an example for others who might be in a similar position.

Come on. All these guys who claim they are so smart and well rounded now all of a sudden are doing "I'm Sorry" posts as if they didn't know. WTF - of course they all were aware. Its easy acting all matter of fact and smart with everything else and then "I'm Sorry". Refer them to a public prosecutor because examples are needed for this to stop. We need some examples to be made.

This post is a perfect example of what I've mentioned elsewhere.

If you ever find yourself in this person's shoes (innocent or guilty) you have nothing to gain by this sort of public display of remorse/sepukku as others have called it.

This type of angry, vitriolic, hate-filled-person will condemn you no matter if your apologies are sincere or not. The only logical move is to deny, people like the poster above will never believe you anyways but they're unwinable anyways.

As long as leftism rules the cultural zeitgeist apologizing for bad behavior will never be enough to matter.

Apologies like McClure are insincere because his behavior has likely been going on for years; targeting many many women (at least 6 according to his accuser); and because McClure knew then, as he does now, that he was in the wrong.

Why do you think he is apologizing? Do you really think he is sorry or just sorry he got caught? I'm sure he is sincere, sincere that he feels bad that he got caught and is now suffering the consequences. This is just like the murderer who cries crocodile tears during sentencing.

Occam's razor. A devil does not become a saint overnight.

I have been asking the same questions as you reading this thread, but I didn't jump to a conclusion anywhere near as readily as you have. There are far too many unknowns about the situation for me to do that.

How do you get away with asserting that he has likely done this "many many" times?

I do agree that an apology under these circumstances is not ideal, but what should he do, exactly? Dig a hole and jump in? Not respond at all? Just say it is true and leave it at that? Any response is going to be subject to dissatisfaction from some part of the mob that we are all part of.

I think the key is to realize that at some point in your life, you were the devil, whether your transgressions were subject to public scrutiny or not. Have some sympathy for the devil and do not be the one who casts a stone.

> How do you get away with asserting that he has likely done this "many many" times?

Sarah posted on twitter that other women have reached out to her claiming similar behavior.

https://twitter.com/sarahkunst/status/881004317674577920

> I think the key is to realize that at some point in your life, you were the devil, whether your transgressions were subject to public scrutiny or not. Have some sympathy for the devil and do not be the one who casts a stone.

In regards to his apology, I thought the qualifiers were offensive and it made me think he was being insincere. I see your point about the pitchforks and mob mentality and I see how my original comment can contribute to that.

That said, I also fee that as a society we have to emphatically reject this type of behavior, especially perpetuated by people with power/influence/resources against those without. We jail people in this country for far less.

You had me until 'leftism'. Could you further elaborate on this point?

I second this. It was a compelling argument until self-sabotage via way of injecting politics.

He doesn't have anything to gain, but his company does. They don't need the messy distraction of this incident ruining their business. This is their attempt to broom it, and they may end up brooming him as well.

>Refer them to a public prosecutor because examples are needed for this to stop. We need some examples to be made.

Setting aside the fact there's nothing to prosecute in most of the cases, I'm curious why you think making examples of people is more important than punishing them in proportion to their offenses.

There's what's legally required, and there's what's morally required. Here's a guy who did some serious soul-searching and said "holy shit, maybe I'm wrong on a very bad way". It's about doing more than what he is bare minimum allowed to get away with.

He's taking personal responsibility for his actions, openly and publicly. That takes a level of maturity and openness that I know is hard, and I fully respect.

All that he missed, in my opinion, is what his next steps are, and how going forward he can assure that this won't happen again. It sounds like he does have plans, but a good apology goes "I was wrong; here's why/how I was wrong; here's what I'm going to do in the future so that I don't repeat the mistake".

But it won't be enough, it won't be seen as positive, and like half the comments in this thread show once you're outed as a PC heretic you're a non-entity.

Read through the smarmy "he doesn't mean it" comments all over this thread to see what I mean.

This culture is toxic in the tech community and needs to stop.

The culture of being being mad at sexual harassment offenders even when they apologize is what is toxic in the tech community.

Did folks who flagged this understand it was sarcastic?

Not being enough doesn't make the public apology a wrong thing.

It is part of the solution.

It's also a very loud social signal.

Well he did mention he began counseling a month ago.

I think it was a great PR move. I don't know the depth of the situation but if he simply said "idk if I should hire you or hit on you", then I think most people are going to read the apology coming away with the belief he is a victim losing his company for a trifle. I did at least. If this was the extent, and he didn't touch her or send lewd photos, frankly I'm angry for him. A society that requires this level of mea culpa for telling a mutual acquintance that was potentially interested in a job over drinks that you were interested in seeing them socially is fucking baffling.

Conversely, (again based on my less than complete knowledge of situation) it seems equally rediculous to say that she made unwanted advances to 500 Startups. They were in a social setting and it isn't clear they were hiring for something she qualified for. Should she apologize for leveraging her relationship with his acquintance to use a social situation professionally? Of course not! Dave did a borderline unethical thing in that scenario and based on the NYT article which is scant with details, I'd at most email her an apology for misreading the situation and being unprofessional

It depends on his motivation, and several hypothetical motivations could fit here; Public shaming (voluntary or forced), aiming to deliberately burn/restore brigdes, lawyer advice or even e-fishing. Is not easy to eval his real expectations.

About the public seppuku question, maybe for a while but nah, for some reason everybody loves when other people discloses a hidden dark side and face public ashaming. Is something about being a social species, probably. We love gossip.

Counterpoint: bowing to the collective social shaming buys the individual no "points", as is evidenced by this tread full of vultures questioning his motives.

Instead we've created a culture where the only logical move is to deny deny deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence because the only thing the modern left hates more than "creep" is a loser.

>Counterpoint: bowing to the collective social shaming buys the individual no "points", as is evidenced by this tread full of vultures questioning his motives.

The cynics in this thread (myself included) are not the target of this self-flagellation.

An interesting game theory observation.

Moving past the judgements regarding the sincerity of his apology, it'd be interesting to learn the various constiuences' ideas of acceptable outcomes at this point.

Counterpoint: his apology was not a calculated tactic to garner goodwill for nefarious purposes so he therefore does not care what "points" he will, by your judgement, gain. It was an honest, human attempt to do the right thing. Or was it? Perhaps you're suggesting he's incapable of even having a desire to do the right thing and instead is totally consumed by selfish sociopathy? It's a serious and damning psychoanalytic allegation to make, not one that I would make from afar. Perhaps you think everyone behaves this way as some sort of justification for his actions? Happily I'll inform you that they don't. What you call "logic" (i.e. pausing, removing all thoughts about morality from your head and taking a moment to refuse to think of others as human beings worthy of consideration and respect, rather, only considering what you personally will gain from a given situation and letting this heuristic drive your decisions completely) describes very few human interactions.

Given how much denial there is about the problem, yes it is really necessary.

I think that humans' problems are better solved without involving the government if at all possible.

However, I certainly agree with you that he should apologize to the actual people he wronged, more than to the world at large.

He's in damage control mode, a purely defensive move to dig his crampons in and stop sliding.

He may mean what he says but only time will tell. Currently is all talk.

The problem with situations like this is there is a lot of context we are not seeing. Maybe its a very genuine apology. Maybe its an attempt at damage limitation. Maybe he was really pushy when hitting on the women and wouldn't take no as an answer. Maybe he was polite and took no for an answer the first time. Probably why the situation is fairly controversial as there are so many unknowns that would make the situation seem better or worse if we actually knew the full story.

>Is it just me, or is committing public seppuku like this really necessary?

I suppose he felt this 'public seppuku' was necessary because a) he was called out by name in the NY Times article and b) he wanted to put it on record that the woman he hit on wasn't rejected from his company for rejecting him. I suspect (b) is the true motive, and without a certain level of self-flagellation it wouldn't be socially acceptable to state that fact.

Nailed it. This is thinly-veiled damage control. While he may genuinely be sorry, his plea for recompense should be directed privately at those his actions affected. A self-effacing blog post like this reads to me as code for "please don't blacklist me in the valley".

We have been inundated by posts like these lately as these creepy dudes have been outed. I have felt as you do on several of them. IMO, this one comes the closest to being a real apology. Doesn't make up for what he did, not by a mile. Doesn't mean he should ever be allowed to be in a position of authority over women again. But for me it was a positive step.

Seppuku is a good description, to me it reads like a modern version of socialist "self criticism" [1]. Which is an undignified, forced way of subdueing the already broken "enemy of the people".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism#Communism

Or he realized he has done something wrong and wants to be clear that's not who he wants to be?

I was out drinking with friends from my University course, back in the day, and made some statement like "uh, well don't be fags about it" - a hangover from my days at a boys only secondary school where "gay" was the most common term for bad and "fag" was the most common insult.

Now, I have no issues with people's sexuality and would never want to offend anyone - but I was drunk and years of using the term as a generic negative insult just lead to me using the term habitually. The issue was, it wasn't just my close friends, but a larger group of people I knew less well.

One of them made the point that he was Bi and didn't appreciate the comment, and I wanted to curl up and die - instantly I had to try and explain myself and apologise. How I acted didn't represent my views, it isn't who I want to be, and it's not how I'd want to interact with anyone. I put that guy - and anyone else there - in a shitty situation and while he was fortunately understanding, and spoke up about it, someone could have just heard me and felt a bit of rejection from the world.

Now, you can argue about the sincerity of this guy's apology, and how possible it is to repeatedly do something and do the things he did in the context he did, etc..., but there comes a point at which if the message is good - which this apology is - it's a flat statement that his behavior was wrong, flat out, which is the right place to start from at least, I think you have to give some level of benefit of the doubt.

People do fuck up. Consequences for that are fine, but you have to try to give people routes to hold up their hands and reject things they did, that has value.

To note, obviously my usage of the terms during my schooling years was just as wrong, but I was a child and it's harder to judge myself at that age because of the environment and lack of knowledge I had at the time. Something I still regret deeply though - it must have been incredibly hard to be gay with so much constant negativity surrounding it in that environment.

> How I acted didn't represent my views, it isn't who I want to be, and it's not how I'd want to interact with anyone.

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense to me. Of course what you said and how you acted represented your views at the time. It wasn't who you wanted to be, but it was who you were. You absolutely used the term fag as an insult and you meant it.

I'm posting this not to judge you or be self-righteous about it, but in the hope of gaining some understanding. I have seen it happen far too many times: a person's racist/sexist words go viral on social media or in the press, and they reflexively publish "That is not my view or a reflection of who I am. Everyone who is close to me knows this". This disassociation puzzles me greatly. How is it that you have the conviction to do/say something and then disavow it when challenged?

In an emotionally-charged situation, it's easy to forget that curse words have an actual meaning other than being an insult. In the situation where your views on what's acceptable have changed, like Latty described, you can slip into old verbal habits pretty easily without realizing it.

> In the situation where your views on what's acceptable have changed, like Latty described, you can slip into old verbal habits pretty easily without realizing it.

I fully agree, however, I think that's just your views slipping out. You might not want to be that way, but you are that way, possibly because of how you were raised or some other factor you didn't have control over. Saying "that is not a true reflection of who I really am" seems ingenious to me.

Except I didn't (and still don't, of course) hold any negative views about gay people. I'll make the same analogy as I did in my other comment - people use "dumb" to mean stupid all of the time. Do those people harbour subconscious anti-mute sentiments, or are they just picking a word that they think of as meaning "stupid"?

Likewise, at the time, I could have replaced "fag" with "dick" with no qualms at the time. It was an insult, and it's meaning didn't matter to me. (Until I was reminded of it's meaning and harm I was causing, which made me stop using it).

I guess I'd describe it as - I'd become desensitized to the meaning of the term and used it not expecting it to cause any harm. You can say that surely it's obvious that it causes harm, but it wasn't obvious to me until the described moment that I was propagating this negative idea of homosexuality. When I did notice that, I stopped.

Except I didn't hold the view that being gay was a negative thing, rather I had gotten so used to the terms being thrown around that I used them in that way despite not agreeing with that. It's similar to how I can use "dumb" to describe someone as stupid without believing that people who can't speak are stupid. I meant to insult the person (and if I'd chosen another word, that would have been fine as it was clearly intended as a friendly, joking thing), but I didn't intend to imply that being gay was a bad thing.

It's a fine line that mostly relies on knowing my own intent - and I make no reservations in stating that whatever my intent, I know I caused harm at the time and I actively worked to ensure that I don't use "gay" and "fag" in that way, because it does have those effects.

It was a bit over the top.

But, I really appreciate it. In many situations, as you can see from other threads here, there is doubt in a lot of people's minds whether there's really a story here, whether the person was wrongly accused, whether it's as bad as people make it out to be, etc.

In this case, he's making it clear that, yes, he really was the wrong party and really did wrong things. I think we should take his statement at face value, and be thankful we have an example of a clear-cut wrong, so anybody who is unsure just how bad the harassment situation really is can point to this as an example.

What he did wasn’t illegal.

When you're getting bad press, doing nothing/very little can be a bad PR move.

To make this a bit more abstract:

Bob is a big wheel over at SomeCompany. Bob is outside work drinking with some friends, say Eve, and runs into Alice. Alice joins them and while she doesn't currently work for SomeCompany she indicates to Bob she would like to join. Bob, like most people, hangs out with a lot of people with similar interests/skill-sets/abilities. As the night wanes, Bob flirts with Alice. Alice declines Bob's advances. SomeCompany ends up not hiring Alice.

So where are we on the morality meter here? First, it is clearly inappropriate to flirt with people you may want to hire. Obviously. But the empathetic side of the argument is that just because you're a big wheel at the cracker factory that shouldn't mean you can never go 'off the clock' and do things humans tend to do like try to get laid. Work and life have become so blended for so many people it's unrealistic to expect this not to happen. We created this culture of 'living to work' and this is a consequence. We should expect these sorts of messy situations to occur and build sane rules/expectations around them. But go ahead and throw stones/downvote/ act outraged. That'll solve the problem.

I think you're right: Alice has established from the start that it's a professional relationship. Continuing to flirt with her is inappropriate. There's no work-life balance element to this: Bob's welcomed to try to get laid. But he should find someone else. Other fish in the sea.

For better or worse, that's one of the trade-offs of being a "big wheel." You have to consider how your actions might affect a whole constellation of people around you.

I've got to wonder, why do coworkers go out for drinks if it's not a social setting? I don't understand the logic of mixing alcohol with colleagues if you're still under the "workplace" umbrella.

I don't really understand socializing with co-workers outside of work under any circumstances, but especially with intoxicants involved. This includes company holiday parties, etc. Let work be work, and keep your social life separate. I've seen far more bad than good come out of such things.

People are people. A true friendship can form between coworkers and there is no reason to forcefully undercut such a relationship just because it's "work". People willing to do that are very weird to me, and I am glad no such people work where I work, or have worked in the past.

Most of my best friends I've met at work, and we socialize often even after changing jobs. I also find it to be a great opportunity to blow off steam with like minded people, about the problems we're encountering in the workplace.

I agree, not a fan of these things. I make friends through jobs, but by planning private hangouts with them...

I went to dinner with seven good friends last week and we all met at the same employer. None of us have been coworkers for over five years. We spent about 2.5 hours together laughing and having a blast.

Some work environments are genuinely conducive to forming friendships and others are not. I haven't befriended coworkers at every job, but my closest friendships have all been from the workplace since leaving school.

Although the percentage is declining, many relationships still begin at work [1]

The real issue is a power imbalance, but this issue also exists in other settings as well.

Alcohol inhibits your judgement, but many people can successfully consume alcohol without adverse social consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-m...

This cut both ways. Power inbalance has the problem that sex is a extremely common strategy for gaining power in human societies. Predators can take any side on the relationship.

All the more reason not to engage (or attempt to initiate) a sexual or romantic relationship with a subordinate or superior.

Well, the problem is that then all we would have is a closed caste system, that is a very undesirable situation in itself and much worse.

Uh, no.

You know it used to be that men and women didn't work together, right? Like, this idea of being able to date at work has only been around for about 50 years or so, while the human race has been around for thousands. Somehow we figured out how to reproduce in the West without a "closed caste system" just fine. You can too, without dating anyone at your job.

There are plenty of people of different social classes than you who don't work at the same company as you, so I don't think a social norm saying that you shouldn't ask out maybe a few dozen people you work with is a "closed caste system".

I met my wife at my job! Been married 8+ years now.

The problem with him is his position. In a position where you can hire or fire people you should not be engaging in this kind of adolescent behavior.

People, colleagues and equals at work should be able to interact socially, over drinks and even hook up. People are human and sexual attraction is natural. I don't think we should try to pretend it does not exist and that we should remove it from the workplace.

What should not happen is people not knowing boundaries or social convention. People should know how to act and should know how not to act -even when drunk.

I don't think workplaces should be sterile, asocial places which ignore human predisposition to social interaction.

Have a quick google. You will find that 38% of people have dated a coworker. I am pretty sure a fair few of those have turned into lifelong relationships. Personally I would regard that as a good outcome.

There are many workplace cultures where it is expected of employees to socialize after hours if they want to get ahead. Individuals in those systems are generally following their self-interest.

In most cases that "self-interest" is wanting to be in contact with people you like. Usually, that also helps "getting ahead" in life in general.

The goal is to get to know your coworkers better, so you can see them as people instead of mere job descriptions. It's still a workplace setting, except that you are discouraged from talking about work. The alcohol is there to cut through the inevitable anxiety that such situations create, not as an excuse to be unprofessional.

How can you see them as people if they aren't being less professional in that setting? What would be the difference? Why wouldn't it be the exact same as water cooler talk?

> How can you see them as people if they aren't being less professional in that setting?

I'm very confused by this question. My view of whether someone is a person is not mitigated by them acting profession.

If you see them as people, you should be able to interact with them as fully-rounded people, including asking them out (once only, not being a persistent nagging asshole), complimenting their attire, telling them the latest gossip, in short - communicating your feelings, provided the feeling is mutual. Whereas in a professional setting, you aren't a person, you're filling a role and obeying protocol. It's a sliding scale between "professional" and "casual", but generally when you're interacting professionally, you aren't addressing the full person, you're only letting your Senior Frobnicator part discuss frobnicating barbazniks with only the Chief Barbaznik Wrangler part of the person in front of you; whereas in a casual setting you're communicating with all parts of the person.

This might be the best summing up of the/our schizophrenic attitude towards professionalism (and work) that I've ever read. The words, "in a professional setting, you aren't a person," just nail it. Meanwhile, the corporation itself has the legal status of a person, and can now even claim to hold religious beliefs. Ergo, we could probably fix some of these issues in the valley with a few properly Gorean S Corps.

By "seeing them as people" I meant to show their personal, as in non professional side. I used the wording of the parents to try to show how it's a bit absurd to think that the lines aren't blurred.

The inappropriateness of McClure actions has no relationship to whether they occurred in a bar over a mixed drink or in an office over a bottled water. The "workplace umbrella", as you put it, follows him wherever he interacts with coworkers due to his position of power over them even if they are interacting in a social setting.

The "workplace umbrella", as you put it, follows him wherever he interacts with coworkers due to his position of power over them

Did I miss something here? My understanding from what McClure wrote is that he was interacting with someone who wasn't a co-worker.

Someone seeking a job that you control can probably be said to be like a coworker for the purposes of analyzing power imbalances.

So a purely social drink with a non-coworker immediately becomes a workplace event when they ask about the possibility of working at your company? Ok, I can sort of see that... but I hope that situation never arises for me, because there's no way I'd be able to switch from "social" to "work" modes that fast.

In any event, I'm not sure that "a job you control" was the case here: It sounds like he (quite rightly) handed that off to someone else and had nothing to do with the hiring decision. It does seem like he should have been clearer to the applicant about not being part of that decision, though.

I met my wife at work drinks, so I'm glad it happens.

Fun fact: You don't have the right to be creepy or predatory towards women just because alcohol is involved. Women have the right to go out for drinks with coworkers without being sexually harassed.

> Women have the right to go out for drinks with coworkers without being sexually harassed.

Yes but you have to understand that we humans have a incredible high drive to reproduce, and many successful couples forms in the work environment. I have a child with a coworker.

Sexual approaches do happen in those kinds of environments but there are a big difference between approaching someone and sexually harassment. Modern women specially millennials tend to see any kind of approach (specially from unattractive males) as harassment and this is not the case, not even legally.

> Sexual approaches do happen in those kinds of environment

The power imbalance and lack of non-work relationship are key.

McClure had no personal relationship with this woman. They weren't friends, and they hadn't met in a non-professional setting.

Furthermore, he's in a position to make decisions about her future. In that situation, it's inappropriate to make the first move, because the other person will feel pressured to reciprocate, even if she doesn't want to.

This is very similar to the way professors aren't allowed to have sexual relationships with students in their classes, but students can have sexual relationships with each other.

Dangerous ground. I would expect contra in form of "mansplaining" or "justification of harassment".

I came to the conclusion that the topic has become too toxic to be discussed seriously. Especially based on a actual case. I just hope this electrified field will return to a base where everybody can talk seriously about it. With the aim being a solution that is appropriate to what we are as humans not as man or woman (or all those other genders...).

I would suggest you take steps to strengthen your relationships with the women in your life, so that you can discuss these things with them and they'll know you're genuine in asking about what is appropriate, etc.

I can think of several women I would have zero problem discussing this stuff with, just because they know I'm not out to stir shit up or play devil's advocate. There's trust there to begin with, so there's openness, etc.

I've found this topic to be toxic only on the internet. Never had this issue in real life. Maybe because I'm not from the US.

However, reading that you had no problem discussing this stuff because you would not "stir shit up or play devils advocate", I'd say you had no discussion at all in the first place.

> ...there are a big difference between approaching someone and sexually harassment.

100% this.

I absolutely believe people can form legitimate and wonderful relationships with coworkers -- even subordinates. Having a kid is awesome and it's great that you found the right person.

But.

There's a clear and obvious difference between building a relationship with someone (even a purely sexual one!) and trying to exploit a power imbalance for free sex. The clearest part of that difference is that building a relationship involves respecting that other person, not just viewing them as an object to be consumed. I suspect you have a tremendous amount of respect for your partner -- and that respect was probably part of the reason you hit it off in the first place.

People who have power need to be especially alert to this. With great power comes great responsibility -- and all that jazz.

"Modern women specially millennials tend to see any kind of approach (specially from unattractive males) as harassment"

You can't just say something like this without backing it up. Anecdotes don't count.

Honest question, maybe one best asked to my female friends: at what point does propositioning someone transition from simply not mutual attraction to sexual harassment? The definition is broad and says making "unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks". Is there a line drawn between romantic and sexual propositioning?

I'm not looking to be intentionally obtuse here, i'm more trying to make sense of the legal nature of it.

When there is a big power difference for one. If you have control over someone's livelihood, propositioning them is inappropriate.

Just curious doesn't this further stratify the power classes? I can't make advances on someone who earns less than me now?

Just earning more isn't the problem. Having control over their career is.

It has nothing to do with salaries; if you're in a position to make decisions about someone's future (hiring them, firing them, etc.), it's not appropriate.

The word "unwanted" is troubling, because it means the alleged victim gets to personally decide whether the act was illegal/punishable or not, based entirely on their own subjective feelings.

So I guess, if you're good looking, it's legal, and maybe you end up marrying and having children (as people often do in these situations). If you're not good looking, it's a violation and you should be fired/prosecuted.

This definitely isn't a clean or fair way to write or enforce laws or standards for conduct and punishment in the workplace. It might still be necessary and it might be the best we can do, but it's definitely all a big gray area, not just in its interpretation, but in its literal definition ("unwanted").

This is the wrong answer.

IANAL but I saw some comments from one, apparently in USA you have to consistently do unwanted approaches for a long time to be considered sexual harassment.

What we need is a Tinder for the workplace. This way both sides are protected if one person says no.

You should ask your female friends! In all seriousness.

Maybe my basic advice is: Don't "proposition" people. Forget the phrase "hit on." Don't lead with your dick.

Meet people. Learn about them. Establish rapport. Maybe something happens, maybe not. When people are legitimately excited by one another, romance can follow. But be respectful enough to not cause harm. Don't interfere with their work life. Don't accidentally or purposefully threaten their careers or companies. Do no harm. Maybe you miss out on a romantic encounter or two, but you'll be a better person. You might actually get some really cool friendships out of it! And when actual sparks fly, you'll know it and it'll be great.

IANAL, etc. Some common themes of sexual harassment training I've taken:

- Boorish behavior crosses the line the first time. Assume this follows the "would you want it published in the New York Times?" rule of thumb.

- For more ambiguous cases (like asking someone on a date,) it's only OK if you don't actually know if the advance is welcome. Once you get an answer, and it's "no," then anything else is an unwelcome advance. I actually saw someone fired because of this, so don't take it lightly.

- Sexual harassment laws exist to protect people against those with positions of power. One training instructor said, "the reason the laws are designed protect your reports against you, and not the other way around, is because you can fire them."

> Honest question, maybe one best asked to my female friends: at what point does propositioning someone transition from simply not mutual attraction to sexual harassment?

It's fairly obvious and self-evident. I consider myself to be on the autism spectrum, and even I know when a female friend is not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship.

Like the legal test for obscenity: I know it when I see it.

A casual and jovial atmosphere doesn't alleviate you from social consequences.

Alcohol is an "organizational lubricant". It's consumption allows people to express controversial opinions that may be needed to be expressed with less potential for blowback due to the setting.

This same plausible deniability also can enable people to be creeps.

I don't know the guy aside from what I have read in the press (both good and bad), but I'd like to think he wrote this with genuine sincerity.

Hopefully this is the start of a groundswell trend of traits such as 'accountability' and 'taking responsibility for your actions' becoming fashionable and an expected part of human behaviour again.

Call me cynical, but I suspect all these apology posts are written largely by the poster's PR firm.

I'm okay with that. Actual apologies, ghost-written or not, have been rare in US business until the past year or so.

Apologies aren't the same as reparations, of course, and should be followed up by that.

I don't think the trend to more genuine sounding apologies reflects an increase in actual empathy/understanding. I just think PR firms have realized you can't get away with the old "sorry if you got offended and can't handle my awesomeness" pseudo-apology nowadays.

This one sounds pretty genuine. With something of this nature you'd be stupid not to have PR people help out, but it does sound genuine.

It sounds like he's stepping back and taking a very hard look at his actions and behavior. Hopefully he improves and doesn't do the same in the future.

Also, hopefully other similarly situated people see this and learn from his (now very public) mistakes.

The best PR is usually going to be PR that doesn't sound like PR. I do hope people learn from this, but I tend to be dubious of "I've changed!" statements immediately after getting caught.

Well, let's be fair here: He didn't say "I've changed" he said "I am trying to change." And this isn't necessarily immediately after getting caught, but after the story was published in the New York Times; it's implied earlier that other people in the company approached him and explained to him that his behavior was unacceptable.

I think it's PR, but that doesn't automatically mean he isn't genuinely apologizing. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm also cynical by nature but ... I'm also hopeful that his behavior does change and that we see that he was sincere by the lack of further examples of bad behavior.

Caveat, McClure's behavior was bad. But seeing recent public floggings for misbehavior I now wonder if people are feeling a bit hypersensitive/cautious about any workplace conduct that could potentially be perceived as harassment.

Case in point. You work at a technology company. You are attracted to another coworker, who is NOT your subordinate. Is there some manner in which it is acceptable to express your interest? Or is this just not OK at all?

> You work at a technology company. You are attracted to another coworker, who is NOT your subordinate. Is there some manner in which it is acceptable to express your interest? Or is this just not OK at all?

Yes, there are plenty of manners to express it, just like at any company. That said, there are a lot of ways to express it that are just making someone's work life terrible.

I think asking coworkers out is a huge no-no. If the only people in your orbit you feel you can connect with that way are at work, that's a sign your personal life needs some development. However, let's say you have a robust personal life, and you just have this absolutely amazing co-worker, who totally is not your subordinate, and ideally you don't even work directly with, and you want to ask them out... again.. I discourage it.... but:

Ask them out someplace public outside of work. If they say no, that means no, and just drop it. If you hear "I don't know, I don't really like to date coworkers" that's also a no - don't push the issue. If they say "I don't think that's a good idea" - also a no. If they say "Eh....." or laugh or whatever, it's a no, and just drop it.

Be aware a no could make things really awkward for you two, and it may even piss off your co-worker who perhaps viewed you as this great work friend but now thinks things are weird. It can hurt them in other ways: they may also blame themselves for not being more into you, and question if they lead you on. So if you get rejected, just say "Hey that's cool. It was a long-shot, I understand."

That really depends. At my current startup there are three "<Company> couples".

Let's see how long that lasts after the company is done being a startup.

'Asking out co-workers is a huge no-no' - to me this feels almost anti-humanist to the point where business is truly more important than our own lives, our being, our existence and our own free will. There is a massive difference between asking out co-workers and sexual harassment.

As a humanist, I disagree. This is my reasoning: Unless the feelings are mutual, asking someone out at work can have negative consequences for the person you're asking, even if your intentions were good. You can't control their feelings, but you can control your actions. Also, believe it or not, your romantic options far outstrip your employment options. Asking people out at work just seems easier but it's quite complicated.

>Unless the feelings are mutual

That's the whole point of asking someone out -- to find out whether the feelings are mutual.

Yes, that's part of my point - that's why it's called /asking/, a world where people are not free to ask - I can only imagine would result in a world where people take, and that - I think we've all whitnessed at times.

If you two barely know each other and never even really talked, then they are unlikely to be mutual. I mean, they are even unlikely to be one sided.

This story is not about couple where two people were fond of each other and started relationship. This is about sending text messages out of cold to women he barely know, who never shown interest and you have power to hire or not. That has nothing to do with love.

I think there's been a misunderstanding, I was making comments about general workplaces - not about the situation in the article.

I agree. Answers like the above one indicate a level of dystopia/fear that itself is concerning. Friendship on any level is highly dependent on proximity in space and time. We need to be aware of how our righteous minds work and stop throwing stones all over the place.

Exactly my feelings, I wouldn't hire someone into my team that I didn't think couldn't become my friend should the situation play out as such, it just seems logical to me.

That sounds like pretty dysfunctional hiring process, no matter what gender of candidate.

Maybe you need to step back a bit and think about this a little more clearly. The issue here isn't the supremacy of business over the individual; it's whether or not it's a good idea for an individual to behave this way because doing so may harm their lives, being, existance, free will, or all of the above of the other person.

I mean, it's OK to be naked, but it's a bad idea to be naked in a public park. We don't assume that means that the municipal government has total supremacy over your being and free will and is anti-humanist.

Give us a break, it's not a huge no-no. One of the most lasting TV series of all time was based entirely on co-worker romances (The Office). I know multiple girls and guys who met their SOs as coworkers.

You may think it's lame (I do too fwiw), but it's still clearly acceptable almost everywhere, so I don't appreciate your gatekeeping.

I don't see how I'm "gatekeeping" by merely answering a question by giving my honest opinion and then pointing out a tactful way to go about doing something I personally would not do.

The version I responded to lead with "Asking out coworkers is a huge no-no," which is pretty clearly gatekeeping.

This is an interesting blend of rigid paranoia and moralistic finger wagging.

>If the only people in your orbit you feel you can connect with that way are at work, that's a sign your personal life needs some development.

Then a very, very significant portion (quite possibly close to half of the population, or approaching thereof in some fields) have personal life developmental problems......or....it could just be that your world view or definition of "appropriate" is a bit off. Which one of those situations is more likely?

Since we are talking about highly male dominated field, his definition is right. They have problem and there is not enough female programmers for them all. And even if they would marry one, they won't spend time with their children and all care will be on her - meaning that they need traditional women who has little carrer ambitions and is simultaneously programmer.

It just so happens that traditional women tend to chose more feminine professions and people with little carrer ambitions tend to prefer slower workplace.

So, good luck.

> I think asking coworkers out is a huge no-no

No way. It's a case by case basis. If someone legitimately seems interested in you, and you are interested in them, there's nothing wrong with asking them if they want to get a bite to eat or something once. Baby steps. It's just inappropriate to immediately reach for the "let's go out" or a romantic advance, and especially inappropriate to "pursue" someone. This is true in almost every social sphere, not just the workplace. It's called being a gentleman.

The idea is to be a gentleman, not a creep. Whether at a bar or at the park or at work.

The only difference as far as the workplace is if you have some sort of position of power above the other employee. Even if you somehow maintain complete impartiality to them, others will probably not see it that way and think it unfair to them. Not to mention that 9.9/10 times someone doesn't want to be hit on by their boss.

You gotta understand, for many people their work life and personal life are the same. A lot of happy couples met in the workplace.

It's not as black and white as you try and portray it. Sure, if the other person says "sorry, I'm busy", that's a definite no. But what if they say is "sorry I'm busy, perhaps some other time"? Are they actually busy and do they actually mean that? Or is it a polite rejection?

At this point, you need to figure out based on body language which one they mean. If you guess wrong and ask again, you're a sexual harasser. If the original conversation was over text and you have no body language other than emojis you're more likely to guess wrong. Nice going, sexual harasser.

And I think it's safe to say that many women will refuse to even consider asking a man out. It's entirely on the guy to initiate everything. Now put yourself in the shoes of someone who spends most of their time at work. In this thread I've seen jibes about how such people should get a life, but let's admit for a second that that's not easy. Such people have a choice - ask out a coworker or remain alone for a long while. In a situation like that, I can understand how they'd be strongly inclined towards interpreting "some other time" as an opportunity rather than a rejection.

That dude will be alone whether he technically has girlfriend or not. By your own description, he spends all the time in work, lets assume working. So they get maybe cofee break together anyway. If he is not working majority of the time he is in work, then maybe he should go socialize elsewhere so that he does not slow other people's work with socialising. There is nothing more irritating than having late meeting or having to work weekend, because basically dude who was supposed to do code review socialize instead of working.

This dude wants it both ways. He wants to be seen as super hard worker, hero who is all the time working - and at the same time he wants to have non work life experiences. So he wants workplace to become like a bar or playground. Then the workplace becomes ineffective but we all get to pretend we are hard workers.

> In a situation like that, I can understand how they'd be strongly inclined towards interpreting "some other time" as an opportunity rather than a rejection.

But then she gets blamed for "not being direct enough" - including here on hacker news. Altrough the issue is not that he did not get it, issue is that he really really does not want to hear the no.

I mean, I get the wishful thinking and dont mind relationship between people, but don't then chalk the persistent dude behavior on girls not being clear or direct enought.

> At this point, you need to figure out based on body language which one they mean.

Or you could ask for clarification. To get a definite answer, you should not ask the same kind of question that got you an ambiguous response last time, but instead directly address that ambiguity.

That's not how romantic relationship work, asking for clarification of ambiguities in a phase where 90% of things done and said are pure ambiguity

I can't really think of any good ways to do it. The good news is that on a software engineer's salary if you're going to do a lot of drinking alone you can at least buy the good stuff.

How about "Would you be interested in going on a date some time?" And if the answer is "No thanks" the response to that can be "OK, I understand."

Have we all become so engrossed with our smartphones 24/7 we've forgotten how to be face-to-face direct with other actual humans?

I've seen someone get fired for doing that. And it was really just that.

>Or is this just not OK at all?

You are asking single 18-30 year old who spend most of their waking hours at work, to not make any advance to the only females they probably see in the week.

Good luck with trying to fight nature.

sorry dude, but that is not an acceptable answer. We live in a society - with moral and legal structures of what is acceptable. During my the life of this startup and the previous one I have gotten f'ed over royally by a small amount of individuals where they infuriated me incredibly. "nature" would have made me punch them in the face - but that is incredibly unacceptable behavior in a society or work environment. You have to be rational and understand what is OK and what is not like an adult.

Completely agree with this sentiment. If we all start acting out of our 'natural will', the world will just go bonkers.

I think most normal/adult people don't want to live in a world where you can't ask out your coworker.

There are literally billions of people in the world. Being professional just means that you exclude coworkers and people you do business with from romantic relationships. Pick anyone else from the billions of people - just not the ones you do business with.

There are spectrums of how much "business" I do with a coworker. If it's another person that works on the same floor or in the same building as me but whom I don't work with directly, then I don't really see any good reason to exclude them.

IMO being professional is more about how you handle the situation if the relationship goes south or never gets off the ground. PDA in the workplace is also unprofessional, obviously. But asking someone out? Doesn't seem unprofessional tbh.

What target population are you basing this on?

I would expect that the overwhelming majority of normal/adult women in tech want to live in exactly that world, and I certainly want to live in a world where roughly 50% of people in tech are women. So it only takes a few men to agree to make it the majority.

Nature and humanity right? We're all humans, I find it fascinating but also infuriating how often people forget that most people just want to be happy and if they find love with those near them then I'm happy for them, far be it from profiteering companies etc... to tell people not to make connections with others.

If this is really true (and I find this rather insulting, as an 18-to-30-year-old male), I'd argue that it's a good reason to diversify hiring beyond 18-to-30-year-old straight single males who have no life outside of work.

I think there are many polite ways of expressing interest, just like you would express interest in any other social setting. I don't think that's inappropriate at all - for example to politely ask out for a coffee, obviously not at the workplace, but somewhere outside. However, in the light of recent activities, I would be quite cautious of any such moves, inherently. The last thing you want is for your actions to be misinterpreted.

Nobody reasonable is going to misinterpret a request for coffee as sexual harassment unless you are socially inept.

"Hey, do you want to get coffee sometime?"

"Oh, no thanks"

"Ok, cool. No problem"

Proceed to move on with your life.

Absolutely, reasonable is the key word here.

Right, and hopefully there exists one reasonable person in the chain of person -> manager -> HR

Here is an idea for a start-up. Go to the site. Enter the email of your interest at work. They receive an email saying "someone is interested in you at work". They come to the site and enter the emails of anyone at work that they are interested in [1]. If there is a match -> reveal. If not -> email the others at work that "someone is interested in you at work."

[1] Also, please let them opt out of any more messages.

I'd advise to never interact with co-workers beyond day to day work interactions. It's just not worth the risk in a society hell-bent on being offended and convicting others of wrong-think. I'm not speaking about actions that are objectively illegal.

Get off your cross, we need to the wood. Lots of people, including in the tech industry, manage to interact with potential romantic partners both romantically and professionally, without triggering lawsuits or tearful Medium apologies. They do it by being mature, considerate, and respectful, and accepting of any outcome, without consequence. If you see the gross behaviour of Sacco et al and think "OMG I'm next!" then that's on you, not the prevailing culture.

One reason it's not OK, at least in tech, is that women are so hugely under-represented.

If a male employee not in a position of hierarchical power innocently expresses his interest to a single female coworker in the entire course of his career, is he evil? Is it harassment? Probably not... But from their female coworker's perspective, that's enough to create a pretty steady stream of random attention.

I think even that best case "only once" scenario creates a sort of crowd-sourced harassment baseline, on top of which you have to add repeat offenders, ones in a position of hierarchical or effective power, those who deal badly with rejection, the fact that the same thing happens in the street, the subway etc...

This crowd-sourced harassment issue needs more attention.

Offering guidance to men without acknowledging the cumlative effect of these random interactions is an oversight.

Due to the statistical imbalances of men and women in various workplaces, a slightly better rule than "ask once, and be polite if they say no" might* be "roll d20, on 20 ask once..."

*just a strawman, this isn't actually a good solution; nor are prediction markets, lotteries, drawing straws, competitions of fitness

Of course there is: "Hey, I'm interested in you. Would you like to go out on a date sometime?" If they say yes, great, plan a date. If they say no, respond with "Ok, that's cool." Then continue to act the same way towards them you did before.

There's a lot of moaning here about how any interaction with a potential partner is an arrest waiting to happen, but the underlying sentiment to that is that everyone else is a vengeful harpy waiting to crucify you. It's an endless nice-guy support group meeting. When you read the articles about Mcclure and Sacco and others, though, you see common things: they're hitting on women coming to them for professional consideration, which necessarily involves a power imbalance; and their requests aren't to go on a date, they're "let's fuck" (i.e., they're inappropriate in most circumstances). You wouldn't ask a girl you met through mutual friends to just go to bed, you'd say "let's get dinner and drinks". But the creep behaviour here is creep behaviour almost everywhere, with an added dose of "I can make or break your career, so choose your answer carefully."

There are very specific definitions of sexual harassment. Asking a coworker out once when neither of you is in the other's chain of command isn't anywhere near that. If you believe that the word no means 'try again tomorrow', feel like part of asking out is to mention that there will be negative consequences for saying no, or work-related advantages for saying yes, and ignore others when they tell you your behavior is making them uncomfortable, then you are going in the road towards harassment.

Let's be realistic about harassment: While seeing something like this triggers fear that suddenly innocent behavior will lead to harassment calls, in practice, your typical male engineer will get away with habitual misbehavior: An employer will only get involved if the behavior at least comes close to qualify as harassment and is well documented. One has to be quite clueless to get anywhere near that level accidentally.

We can be afraid, but that doesn't make the fear well founded. The cases that we see in the media involve systemic, repeated misbehavior from people in situations of power, not a random IC that asks a woman engineer out politely when she isn't interested. Asking your coworkers out is fine.

A good antidote to the fears is to just listen to women talk about what they deal with. There's plenty of articles out there, and heck, even tweet storms form well known women engineers, explaining the kind of shitty behavior they are exposed to every day. It will show you how there's an abyss between what you think is OK and what they have to put up with.

Reading these comments makes me really depressed for the future of our society. Let me get this straight -

1. Don't go out with co-workers. 2. Don't make friends with co-workers. 3. Def. never drink with co-workers.

Have we really become this sensitive? There's a voice in me that's screaming 'fuck off' to this kind of attitude. I can't quite articulate why it infuriates me so much.

What are you talking about? You can do all of those things, just don't hit on them!

All emotions must be eliminated from public interaction. All social processes must be bureaucratically authorized. Don't forget to take your Prozium and sign your consent forms.

It's really just bothersome in as much as the accusations cross into involuntary territory when in the presence of someone you are attracted to. Lingering eye contact, vibe change, getting in a cheery mood that makes you want to crack a joke (light flirting), is involuntary for most around people they are attracted to. It has nothing in common with overtly hitting on someone, yet such involuntary responses do sometimes get policed in the same way. I could see someone leveling against a man, "Your vibe changes when a pretty girl walks in." or "You make extra eye contact with her." and I have to wonder if people are indeed mixing those types of claims with the serious ones when they call out figures like Chris Sacca or McClure. If so, there should probably be a discussion...

0. Don't tell attractive young women a bit over half your age on facebook and over drinks that they're sexy and you're not sure if you should hire them or hit on them if you are a person in charge in a company in an industry that is underrepresented among women.

Given the economic opportunities at stake, it's probably most equitable for the high-tech workplace to be stiff and formal, so that everyone involved feels equally dislocated from their comfort zone.

If you're used to the workplace mimicking the conventions of subcultures you belong to, the transition will be a drag, but, if you're alienated from the dominant workplace subculture, probably a breath of fresh air.

> stiff and formal

Maybe people should wear suits and ties then. You know, to make it abundantly clear that the workplace is a stiff and formal environment.

Corporate leadership is responsible for setting tone in the workplace, and the ethos that has been paraded in Silicon Valley since its birth is that everyone is a friendly collaborator, that ideas and people flow freely from company to company, as if in a casual manner, and the dress code reflected that.

Turning anything in SV into "stiff and formal" goes against SV's cultural soul.

> Maybe people should wear suits and ties then. You know, to make it abundantly clear that the workplace is a stiff and formal environment.

Suits and ties are a step in the right direction, but I think what many of us would really like to see are non-gendered company uniforms along with well defined personal style guidelines (hair, makeup, et al)

That's what you've taken from all of this? Don't drink with co-workers?

I don't think that's what's causing the outrage, here...

I'm pretty sure OP is referring to a bunch of other comments here that were saying those exact things - that to avoid such a situations from arising in the first place, refrain from doing anything non-work related with coworkers.

Which is all hilarious to me because I'm friends with a lot of my coworkers, drink with them, and even have had the audacity to casually (and mutually) flirt with a couple of them. Based on what I've been reading in these comments, my career ought to be crumbling down by now.

I think some commenters are focusing too much on the non-professional aspect and not enough on the power-imbalance aspect presented in some of these cases.

I for one am happy to see a true apology here, not an "I'm sorry if I offended you" statement that so many people make the days.

This has all the points of a proper apology: an understanding of the wrong committed, acknowledging that it was his fault, and demonstrating commitment to change. It also appears to be sincere

It's a qualified apology. I dislike how he not-so-subtly tries to justify his actions by painting a context that delegitimizes Sarah's claims.

It's worth noting that Sarah claims that many other women contacted her with similar stories of harassment, the fact that all of them are also women of color is especially telling (as were all of Caldbeck's victims).

I mean if he wants to bring up contextual details, maybe McClure should mention that like Caldbeck, he is also married. So how more scummy can you be? A sexist harasser and an adulterer. These guys are only sorry they got caught and are now back pedaling to save some face.

People need to understand that this type of behavior causes terrible damage on the victims which can last for years and often leave permanent scars. So it's especially fucked up and unjust that people like McClure and Caldbeck, when caught, can simply make a half-assed -- and in the case of Caldbeck and Sacca, narcissistic -- apology; lay low for a few months; and then jump right back as if nothing happened.

For fuck's sake one of the LPs at Binary knew about Caldbeck's reputation and harassment issues and still invested.

Not sure what to say, or how to make things whole for his victims as there is a very wide spectrum of consequence between 'boys will be boys' and capital punishment.

I really encourage him to think in terms of 'next steps' to make amends when it comes to those affected by his behavior. Anything less, in my completely and totally unqualified opinion, is but self-serving lip service.

A HUGE percentage of couples meet through work.

It's not inherently wrong, or something inherently taboo. (We've all been told not to stick our pens in the company ink, but... time and time again we also see examples of happily married couples who met on the job... Bill Gates' wife worked for Microsoft, The Obamas met while they were working together, Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively met on the set of Green Lantern...)

So it feels like the message here is, "It's fine when it works, and it's totally not fine when it doesn't work." The only way to know if it's fine is to ask. It's not really something you can make universal rules for. To each their own, right? (I would say a wedding ring means someone is off limits, but affairs happen all the time too.)

Point being, it has to be something more than, "It's OK to hit on someone if they are attracted to you." I think hitting on someone is inherently a compliment. But if they say no, and you try again, and they still say no, well probably don't try a third time. This guy is apologizing for being called a creep after hitting on someone once... man, that's rough. You don't know until you try.

There needs to be a little more flex here, it can't just come down to, "Anyone who we don't feel attraction to should be fired if they pay us a poorly worded compliment or tell a bad joke." Stalkers, sure... people who try and leverage their position in the company to get laid (with the implication), yeah... but just some guy who tries to clumsily flirt with a girl and can't play it smooth because he's fundamentally not a player and actually likes her... come on, cut that guy some slack.

Power inbalance man, that's the point.

There's always power imbalances though. Social, knowledge, financial... can you only hit on people whose looks are on par with your own, and who have the same amount of money you do, and same education, same experience, knowledge, social network... blah blah. Always going to be a power imbalance of some sort between people.

This.

If I'm a rich man and I ask a poor woman out, her answer actually might have a much bigger impact on her economic well-being than if I were an employer interviewing her for a job.

Does that make it wrong for rich men to ask poor women out?

I think you are conflating power with advantages. I have advantages over many people, but I have little to no power to punish them.

Much of the issue isn't just "meeting through work", but the power imbalance. Of your examples, only Gates includes this imbalance.

I don't know the specifics of their situation, but I'd hope that he recused himself from being directly involved in her performance reviews etc., whereas McClure was explicitly tying his attraction to the hiring decision - "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you."

I'd be more worried about the guy who she says no to who keeps coming. Poor judgement... maybe, but who knows what signals he was reading into the situation at the time. He just sounds like a guy who doesn't have a lot of experience with women, and he tried to make a joke and it didn't go well. Now he's gotta read about his failed flirtation attempts in the NYT. That's gotta be rough.

If he was overt, or repetitive, or really sleazy... yeah sure, I'm not on his side. But to me this just comes off as a guy who hit on someone who was out of his physical league and she didn't appreciate it (probably also because she didn't get offered a job). I don't think Dave McClure deserves to be crucified over this.

> If he was overt, or repetitive, or really sleazy... yeah sure, I'm not on his side.

The apology explicitly states "I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate."

I'd be more worried if he made multiple advances to the same woman after being shot down multiple times by that woman. That's harassment.

He's just... well... he seems like a really lonely guy.

You might have had a point in your first comment, now you're just defending a guy who won't even defend himself, for some reason.

Fair, it's late and I was just trying to clarify my point.

This whole thread is toxic.

Nothing but polarized opinions. I'd like it if there was more middle ground, and a lot less emotionally-charged up/down votes. When the points start feeling like Reddit, it's a huge turnoff.

Meeting a coworker (even a boss!) socially, having drinks, escalating into a relationship - no problem. Normally-socialized people can do this because they can make these decisions over time, being careful to give the other person outs along the way.

McClure was basically honking his horn while driving his Tesla down the street, hollering "nice tits!" At best, that is anti-social, rude and offputting. But to do it while someone is in the midst of applying for a job can't be seen as anything other than an abuse of power to get what you want.

How would you feel if McClure gay propositioned YOU while trying to apply for a job? You want to work at this VC fund but before you can get your foot in the door he says you are a super hot stud and and he wants to take you home. For a man, it would be awkward as hell but easy to deflect. And you would probably rather not work there (this is where it is bad for business, not just McClure's penis).

As am attractive woman, this shit happens ALL THE TIME. Please stop defending it as "normal animal behavior" or whatever. Using power to get laid is fine if someone is attracted to that. But using power OVER someone is coersion. Anyone over the age of 13 should be able to figure this out.

> How would you feel if McClure gay propositioned YOU while trying to apply for a job? You want to work at this VC fund but before you can get your foot in the door he says you are a super hot stud and and he wants to take you home. For a man, it would be awkward as hell but easy to deflect. And you would probably rather not work there (this is where it is bad for business, not just McClure's penis).

When I was in my 20s I had an older female boss hit on me all the time. It made me not want to work with her. And as soon as I could move projects I did. I didn't worry about it past that. It never occurred to me that I should be upset or hurt but her behavior. I just thought she was pathetic. I've had a gay boss, and would joke with him about how many blowjobs I would need to give to get out of a deadline... point being, maybe it wasn't "appropriate" but we had good rapport. You can laugh about stupid stuff. It's when people get all worked up and start wanting to tell others how to live that I think the real problem kicks in.

> As am attractive woman, this shit happens ALL THE TIME. Please stop defending it as "normal animal behavior" or whatever. Using power to get laid is fine if someone is attracted to that. But using power OVER someone is coersion. Anyone over the age of 13 should be able to figure this out.

I haven't read much about this story past what I saw on HN, but it just made McClure out to be a guy who was super awkward around women. Not in an aggressive predatory way, more just a sad geeky sort of "I haven't gotten laid in a long long time..." sort of way. There's always a power dynamic... some people can offer a job, or more social connections, or physical attraction, or money... it's not just that the guy had power over the girl -- clearly if he's feeling compelled to hit on the girl she had power over him too.

I get having a raging boner for a girl, but there are so many better way to handle this with a shred of empathy. First, he could wait until she is hired/not hired to proposition her. Second, he could simply ask her on a date, prefaced with "this has nothing to do with our business relationship".

And I don't think she has any "hot girl" power over him. It sounds like he did this all the time, to any woman he wanted to bang. He wasn't pining over her, he didn't want to get to know her. To me it sounds like a short jump from this to grabbing them by the pussy because what are they going to do about it?

I, uh, can't believe that otherwise smart people can't understand the difference between building a romantic relationship and sexual harassment.

I think it's clear from these comments that all companies, everywhere, are doing a terrible job with their sexual harassment training. When otherwise highly intelligent and educated people haven't even heard of power imbalance or hostile work environments, or "intent is irrelevant", this is a huge problem.

If you're running a company, please make it a priority to start real, meaningful sexual harassment training right now. Good god.

I couldn't believe the guy here who was like, sure I heard the constant accusations, but I never believed they were actually true!

I mean, what will it take to make people believe that this problem is real?!

You have to assume all of these apologies are written with the help of PR firms and crisis management teams. Sacca’s was the most obviously phony, which makes sense since he’s trying to protect his new TV career.

There are way more of these creeps than these stories will let out. It really depends how well connected you are to the media machine in SV. Binary Capital and 500 are both too small and irrelevant to cause problems for the reporters breaking these stories, but what about Peter Thiel’s friends? You can’t even talk about them without worrying about going bankrupt.

There are a lot of women out there who are watching these stories and saying absolutely nothing, because they know the odds are still stacked against them. Exposing a couple mid tier guys doesn’t mean anything.

I don't like this world where every social interaction could have drastic, long-lasting effects on my reputation. Where every employee's word/deed is taken as a company action, unless otherwise specified.

I'm human, and I'm fallible. I will make, or have already made, a bad decision that someone else will be able to hold over me for the rest of my life.

People need to be allowed to make mistakes so they can learn from them. Not be crucified to make an example for others.

Good for him for apologizing. I don't envy his position. It's lonely at the top.

I'm not going to congratulate this guy or call him brave or anything, and I'm just going to mention that I consider this proof that speaking up against unfair treatment (in this case, harassment) can have an impact.

The only thing I'm going to commend about this post is that it's nice that he's trying not to bring the company (and thus, his colleagues) down with him.

Presumably a large amount of his net worth is tied up in this company. So of course he doesn't want to take it down.

I can't help it but I can't find any reason to consider this as having > 0 information. You are absolutely forced and 100% expected to do this in a situation now, right?

I, honestly, find this very disturbing (black mirror way), regardless of my opinion on the matter at hand.

> You are absolutely forced and 100% expected to do this in a situation now, right?

Not remotely. Just look at any of the recent Fox News harassment scandals, or literally anything involving the current POTUS.

Refreshing to see an actual apology instead of a digging in of heels common to tech industry shittiness (see: Notch). The apology may(?) be cathartic for the people he's harassed but the damage is done. He's only apologizing as a forced response from the major public backlash. The only silver lining I see is others will be (and are) scared about this kind of behavior which used to go unchecked.

One thing I'd like to see from these people on the inside is some sense of where this comes from. Where did they learn it? What does it say about others in the VC club who saw something and said nothing? This stuff has obviously been condoned for years and years and years, he should help dismantle it more than falling on his own sword. Reveal the secret handshake(s).

His response reminded me of the famous 'Asoh Defense', when Captain Kohei Asoh accidently put a perfectly good plane into the water on approach to SFO [0]

> Asoh, when asked by the NTSB about the landing, reportedly replied, "As you Americans say, I f__d up." In his 1988 book The Abilene Paradox, author Jerry B. Harvey termed this frank acceptance of blame the "Asoh defense", and the story and term have been taken up by a number of other management theorists.

I believe Dave McClure taking responsibility for his mistakes in such a strong way is a step towards repairing the damage caused by his inappropriate behavior.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_2#The_.2...

One could also term it "adult behavior".

when this happens it goes beyond just being a creep at work. the people you do this may fear retaliation for reporting the incident, work with you after (he still works at the company), and face down skeptics who can belittle what happened

this post shows some thoughtfulness, but my reaction is "stay far away from this person and this company"

Assuming McClure follows through by 1) refraining from harassing any more people and 2) making things right with the particular people he hurt, it doesn't matter whether he is sincere or not. How would you even tell what's in his mind? What matters is that he has changed the common knowledge of what behavior he publicly endorses (or in this case, condemns) [1]. His apology is proof of sorts that he will follow a better standard of behavior, because now he stands to be treated as a liar and hypocrite on top of the normal punishment if he backslides.

From our side, if we as a community continue to denigrate him even after he has done the most he possibly could to change the moral consensus on this topic for the better, we're going to discourage others from apologizing and drive them to deny. Why bear the cost of admitting you're wrong if there's no benefit?

[1] I highly recommend Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge by Michael Suk-Young Chwe for a game-theoretic exploration of topics like this. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9998.html

As someone once said, "You can offer an excuse or you can offer an apology, but you can't offer both."

I'm not sure which this is. It sounds to me like both.

You can offer both, but the most likely outcome is that they won't be accepted as such.

That's probably correct. His 'apology' included a contradiction of certain statements made in the NY Times story by the woman he harassed, specifically that her rejection of him was the reason she was not being hired by his company. I think he wanted that on the record.

I was pretty critical on here just yesterday about Dave McClure. I'd never met him in person but felt like his behavior was unlike the guy I felt I knew from his writings and interviews.

This is heads above the apologies from Justin Caldbeck and Sacca though I wished he'd written it months ago, back when the changes at 500 Startups were first made. It's a good start, but only the beginning.

I wish there was a way to give imaginary internet upvote points to all the people who didn't act like harassing shitheads, but I guess we're stuck with giving them to this asshole, who whines about "this isn't who I am!" and "I invested in so many of my LGBTQ friends!" months or years afterwords when finally called out on it.

Yes, there is something infuriating about this cycle of become rich acting like a jackass -> get called out -> write some apology blog post -> get showered with praise for doing the bare minimum as a human. Of course doubling down and not apologizing is worse, but I guess at some point you have to ask materially, what really is the difference.

Women entrepreneurs who had trouble getting funded because VCs could only think about their dicks, what do they gain from this?

This is how I feel anytime I want to ask a girl out, that I'll come across as a creep haha. I should probably stop watching them through their window.

Edit: this reminds me of the Dove guy from American Apparel happened to listen to some podcasts (too many) about him.

I just wish I believed in myself more and wasn't so hesitant/worry about "getting in trouble"

> During the recruiting process, Mr. McClure, a founder of 500 Startups and an investor, sent her a Facebook message that read in part, “I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you.”

Its interesting to think about what this would be like if the roles were reversed. The VC was female, and the applicant was male.

As a male in this situation I see this as completely neutral, even positive. If the founder likes me, then I have more chance of getting a highly sought after role which I might not have otherwise - as no company really hires solely on merit anyway. As a male, if there is a female HR contact, I would always welcome them flirting with me, as it only increases my chances of getting the job by giving me points when there are subjective evaluations required.

If I was single and interested in this female VC its a clear opening for a date. If I am attracted to her, I could have a date. If not, I could just laugh it off and say I'm already seeing someone. Life moves on.

Now if I push back an advance, they might get petty and decide to not hire me as some kind of revenge, or otherwise, they may be more likely to hire me because they want me around.

---

Now, obviously this is not a 1-1 analogous situation because of the world as it is today. Some notable differences...

- There are more male VCs than females. - There are probably less female applicants for such positions. - Males are the physically stronger sex. - Males are more likely to make advances than females (is this true?).

So I am interested in which of these above variables must be inverted to change my reaction. I need to think more on it.

But an interesting aspect is that, perhaps males think like this, and therefore think its okay. I am guessing that its the other gender imbalance variables that make this not applicable vise-versa, which is harder for males to play out in their mind.

I'm not sure I totally agree with your comments. In particular:

> Now if I push back an advance, they might get petty and decide to not hire me as some kind of revenge

I think this is precisely the reason that it's inappropriate, regardless of gender. Even if you (as a hypothetical VC) aren't going to be petty (and let's be honest, emotions are complicated and keeping feelings out of a decision is hard), you've put out the idea that your advances are somehow related to the recruitment process. This will totally make someone uncomfortable, especially when they're probably already sweating about the recruiting process.

> This will totally make someone uncomfortable, especially when they're probably already sweating about the recruiting process.

But from a male perspective (in the hypothetical above), I don't see it at all. I only see it as positive, and I think most males would feel the same. If there were repeated advances, then it would get a bit frustrating. And if I didn't get the job after knocking back repeated advances, then I would definitely see who I could contact about it.

This is a very Dave-like apology and I hope it leads to meaningful change for him as it's clearly creating a bigger conversation. I believe in second chances and I really hope we see Dave back into the trenches. He's done a lot for the industry and it'll be interesting to see if he's welcomed back.

I'm not sure if creep is the best word to use here. Creep is a gendered term like slut or bitch.

So it would be weird if he called himself a bitch maybe, but he is a male calling himself creep, so I'm confused.

Dear lord.

Can someone explain to me what he did exactly?

I know he messaged a woman saying "I don't know if I should hire you or hit on you."

What kind of environment were they in? Were they hanging out socially or professionally? Was she formally in a recruitment process with his firm?

It seems to me that they were in a socially ambiguous situation and that McClure interpreted the environment wrong and did some innocuous flirting. This doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.

This stepping down from his job and public self-flagellation seems overblown to me but I feel like I may not fully understand what his actions exactly were.

I find that he mentions the situation occurred "over drinks" a way to make it seem less innappropriate. It's pretty simple, don't hit on women you have a business relationship with. I've seen it happen on multiple occasions and I cringe every time.

He completely misses the forests from the trees.

Had the woman been hired she would have been denied by him the satisfaction of knowing she earned the position through her hard work, intelligence, and capabilities.

He also does not seem to recognize why he is a creep. Ultimately we find people creepy when they portray themselves and their motives one way and yet secretly or covertly act another.

I recommend therapy so that he can identify his true desires and motivations and then realign his life to optimize for them.

Not to be confrontational here (or argue with your primary point), but I'm pretty sure you didn't read the whole post. It says in the post that he's been going attending regular counseling already.

Good catch. I did read that but misplaced it when replying.

I am glad he is seeking help but I hope its for purposes of identifying his desires/behaviors and not only mandated by circumstance.

> I did read that but misplaced it when replying.

This is some of the most ridiculous phrasing I've ever come across.

It is to admit that I could have said "glad to see he is in therapy and hope he finds his true motivations" but I forgot he mentioned it because it is besides the point. The objective of my comment was to throttle down the "creep shaming" going on in this forum and several others.

Many people sometimes act creepily without even being aware of it. A little empathy as to how the other person feels and what their goals are can help one treat them with the respect they deserve. Hopefully the author can discover when his various desires are appropriate to express in context of the circumstances at hand.

>Had the woman been hired she would have been denied by him the satisfaction of knowing she earned the position through her hard work, intelligence, and capabilities.

Meh. People get hired for bad, or unfair reasons all the time. Nobody cares about that. If that wasn't the case referrals and affirmative action wouldn't be allowed. The reality is that reasons for getting hired aren't as important as being competent in the job you were hired for.

Sure nobody denies hiring happens for unfair reasons all the time. That does not mean its not an ideal to hope for. I would expect more from authoritative figures who have already found success in our industry and looking to assist the next generation.

Is it so much to ask that a venture capitalist who is looking for the best and brightest to propel our industry to hire you know... the best and brightest? She should not have to look herself in the mirror and ask "Did I get this because I am qualified, intelligent, and worked hard or because he wants to hit on me?"

Let me phrase it differently. If he had asked her "Would you accept an employment position with us because I find you very attractive?" Do you think she would accept?

Maybe she would but that is besides my point. A little empathy for how she feels demonstrates that she was applying for a job she felt qualified for intellectually and not physically.

My point is, being hired for the wrong reasons for a job you're qualified for is a nothing-burger. It just isn't that big of a deal. But yes, I do take your point about respect and common decency.

Doesn't count. The true character of a person is revealed when there's no one around to punish bad behavior.

Meh, nice-written copy-paste apology I guess.

It changes nothing. In my eyes he has a stain for life. Exactly how it should be.

Loses his job. Major strike on his career. National public shaming. I'm gonna click the link and go see what murderous crime he committed.

We send people to jail for decades for selling weed. Our sense of justice in this country is perverted. I honestly believe many people would support imprisonment, ostracization, or worse, for this person instead of rehab or similar paths.

People lose their job for all sorts of reasons, no crime necessary. If you're going to worry about people losing their jobs, why don't we start by talking about everyone laid off at Etsy, and importantly, the college kids who were informed two weeks before their internship started that no such internship existed any more?

As for career and public shame: he's had a wildly successful career and significant public praise in his lifetime. I think he can deal with it.

As I wrote in another thread, take a look at Brendan Eich. If losing your job and being publicly shamed leads to being in charge of a well-funded, well-respected growing startup with a real product (plus whatever net worth he has from his previous employment, none of which was taken from him), I would like to know how to sign up to be publicly shamed like that.

i.e. 'if they are powerful, nothing done to them can be called injustice' progressive.

I think it's more that on the scale of how injust something can be, this just doesn't seem up there enough to be worth getting upset over.

As with most things in real life, my thoughts here are quite a bit more complex than a half-sentence inaccurate absurdist reduction plus an unrelated political label at the end. Are you interested in having discussions involving multiple complete sentences, or have I wasted my time replying?

With power comes great responsibility. If we want to move forward with the changes we want to see in the tech culture to something more hospitable to all, we need to highlight those people most responsible for shaping it when they behave poorly. It's inappropriate to be overly concerned about how the offending party is punished since they will likely recover and improve as people in the process. Or even in the case where this is not true, the benefit to the many of calling out their behavior is far more important. And anyway, losing your job and going through an apology/shaming shitstorm is not really that big a deal for someone with his resume. There are plenty of examples of people that went on to better things subsequently.

This reminds me of when Jiam Ghomeshi made a post about being into S&M right before his accusers charged him with rape.

Pure PR, if he is really sorry, he should resign from all positions with "power" over other human beings...

If he were truly sorry he would retreat to a mountain lair to live out the rest of his days as a monastic hermit. Clearly the fact that he still has a keyboard to type on proves his insincerity. /s

A 500 Startups partner just quit, saying leadership was untruthful about the Dave McClure situation

http://www.businessinsider.com/500-startups-partner-quits-ci...

Good on this guy for owning up. Now he has a chance to move on without trying to live his life as a lie.

I keep a 100% wall between work and personal life for a reason. Anyone I'm doing business with I see at best as a coworker or business acquaintance, so there is no risk of merging those two realms.

If you are powerful man or woman, you should be aware that people who know who you are treat you differently. This Dave McClure guy actually thought all these women were into him purely because he was some amazing dude and not because he could finance their dreams. What a moron

Isn't there only a risk because you're a creep?

My best friends have been those that I've worked with and never once has that been a problem for me because I know how to be an appropriate human being.

> Isn't there only a risk because you're a creep?

No, blackmail is possible also. Obviously, you have to be worth blackmailing, but some people have some low standards for rewards.

Not commenting on this case, but Billy Graham, after seeing what happened to other well know preachers, was never alone with any woman except his wife Ruth. It is a pretty good strategy. Today, a powerful person could probably enhance his/her personal security by having an assistant with an always on camera like some police forces use.

He may have been protecting himself from others, but also protecting himself from himself? I don't feel Billy Graham was eager to cheat, but he recognized his potential for giving in to temptation, and made specific choices ahead of time to minimize his risk.

He saw a lot in his life, and I would imagine that the stare into the abyss line was in his mind. I get the feeling that he was not really tempted to cheat himself (unlike some other that can be named), but was very conscious of a scandal.

For other, maybe in this case, having people around you to get you away from trouble is also an excellent idea. In a position of power, a person should also be conscious to the effects on all the people who depend on you. If you have a drinking problem, perhaps a constant sober coach is a good idea. Having a person to make sure you don't get personal with other might follow along those lines.

Like a lot of things in life, it is a two front war. Are you protected against some external agent, and are you protected from yourself. Some will only need one type of protection, but if you are in a position where people depend on you, then you should be honest, at least with yourself, and make some good choices.

> He may have been protecting himself from others, but also protecting himself from himself?

Does it matter? The fact is, if you are a man in a position of power, never being alone in a room with a woman you don't know very well, is starting to sound like a reasonable strategy.

People in other threads have said, that limiting your one-on-ones with women, inhibits their opportunities (perhaps we should not have one-on-ones at all to make that fair). But when there are other people in your life that you need to "protect" from any scandals, I really can't blame these men for picking their loved ones and reputations over "social justice".

This is one of those "going to get worse before it gets better" things.

VPOTUS Mike Pence takes the same approach. This makes it tough for him to give important jobs to women, at least ones who would have to work closely with him.

That is not a good thing.

I would need actual proof that it makes it tough. Having a trusted assistant in the room, always, is not exactly a logistical problem. I'm trying to think of a work situation where it is imperative for two people and only two people to be alone. Seems like a bad thing even for M-M.

I agree its not a good thing, but its the way of a world where accusation is treated as fact and put on the front page and the retraction is somewhere inside the paper in small type.

>What a moron

People usually fall for these lies (whether of their own invention or others) because they want to believe. It's more like a cognitive bias than a lack of IQ.

Is asking a woman if you can buy her coffee sometime sexual harrasment if you do it at the workplace?

Yes.

No. That's not right. Don't be stupid.

People meet romantic partners and spouses at work all the time - are they all sexual harassers?

The true answer is: "It depends".

Don't shit where you eat is a sensible, safe rule to live by; ymmv.

I wonder about people like you. Do you live in the real world, and interact with real people? Do you have real friends? Because it doesn't sound like it.

Not dating your coworkers is a sensible rule that some people follow and some companies may have policies around ... but a rule you have no hope in expecting to be universally adhered to. Case in point: The sheer number of (happy and unhappy) couples who met at work.

I've worked with plenty of workplace couples, I'm not casting aspersions on them. It can and does work out great for many. I just personally believe in separating work and life. Sorry for the un-nuanced answer.

Yeah, some nuance is lost when you label everyone who asks a co-worker out on a date a 'sexual harasser'.

Not my intention, sorry you took it that way. What I'm trying to convey is: if the original person asking the question was looking for advice, you probably don't want to cross that line. Work is work. Other stuff is completely separate.

I could totally be wrong and love of his/her/their life is out there in cube H206. I'm just some person online.

I live by this rule. But I also don't really have many opportunities to meet women outside of work either.

At this point I just accepted that I'm gonna be lonely for the time being and am biding my time to save up money and leave the Bay. A human connection and romance just isn't worth the social cost these days.

"Don't shit where you eat" is a good rule of thumb once you realize that its not a game you can win.

If you're their superior, then yes, definitely.

It could be, it could not be. Context is important.

The amount Sacca's been virtue signaling about gender equality, racism, how much he loves his wife -- for the last 3 years -- I knew something was up. When he started posting that he had moved to Montana, I got the feeling he was in hiding.

It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech. This does create an incentive for women to play a little loose with their professional behavior, and we only see one side of the story here.

No, I don't mean to excuse McClure's behavior entirely; however, the fact that many of these women did not immediately cease contact after innapropriate advances, and continues to take advantage of funds and mentorship, suggests that these women are at least partly culpable. This isn't victim blaming; when you have hundreds of applicants to choose from/compete with, it isn't a surprise that people use/accept sexual flirtation (and sometimes favors) to get ahead/judge applicants.

People have been selling sex for thousands of years. The only novelty here is the outrage.

Yes, you are victim blaming. You are immediately assuming with no evidence that she's some kind of conniving she-devil.

They are not in tech. They are in venture capital, and it's more challenging to get a position at a VC firm than it is to get a job at a startup as an engineer.

I am not assuming anything. In fact it is ironically the opposite, people are assuming that McClure is some kind of he-devil.

The truth is likely much murkier. But because of the power imbalance, in our culture we are more critical of McClure.

Also I'm speaking in general terms. Sexual favors are nothing new, regardless of whether you feel they are ethical.

> It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech.

And again this comes up every single time. Just because someone is lonely didn't mean they're entitled to sexually harass someone else. Nor does being horny justify it. Nor does being angry justify violence.

Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment is exactly why there is a law there protecting people from it. In part, it's illegal to put people in a position where they have to make that choice.

>Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment

And what of the situation in which women continue to associate with their harassers? Do they truely have no liability? Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? Why does this have to be such an absurdly one sided topic?

And yes, being lonely to the point of depression is indeed justification for making initial advances which may be misconstrued as sexual harassment, when monetary or other favors are accepted. If they do not cease when identified as unwelcome, they become a problem, sure. But the onus is also on the victim to communicate, and continued association is not only a mixed message, the victim begins to take advantage of the sexual tension by leading the harasser on and continuing to accept business favors.

In our rush to protect these women, whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless, we only consider the imbalance of power and totally ignore the imbalance of sexual capital that is rife for exploitation especially by females.

I also do not believe that down votes are designed to signal disagreement.

> Do they truely have no liability?

Liability in being the victim of harassment?

> Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead?

It's not impossible to consider this, but this isn't what is being discussed.

> and continued association is not only a mixed message,

And again you keep missing the point. Continued associated is a result of a business relationship. That's exactly the point. By continuing a professional relationship with someone does not mean you are consenting to further sexual advances that you've already declined.

> whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless

Again noone is painting anyone as defenseless. You're view of this entire picture is skewed. It is about being placed in situations that people shouldn't have to be placed it. Or make decisions they shouldn't have to make. That doesn't make anyone defenseless. Victims of sexual harassment (whether men or women) have agency in life, it's just situations that they shouldn't be put in.

> It's a qualified apology. I dislike how he not-so-subtly tries to justify his actions by painting a context that delegitimizes Sarah's claims.

What claims were "deligitimized" and how did he do it?

As for everything else you wrote I'll just say it must be awful living with such a misanthropic view but, hey, you do you.

Other posters agree with my read on his apology. While apologizing, McClure is also simultaneously trying to water down Sarah's presentation of the story; that the situation was more/less social in nature... specifically he says stuff like:

... years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group ...

... for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not ...

I mean, sure, the situation wasn't a formal interview, but by his omission, I take it that it also wasn't a dinner or social outing with friends. He also brings up that drinks were involved, but practically every company/vc sponsored event in the valley has alcohol involved. That doesn't make it okay to proposition an attendee you talked to about an open job position afterwards over FACEBOOK and bring up said job as part of your come-on. I mean this is literally the textbook definition of sexual harassment.

McClure of course doesn't bring up this level of detail about all the other instances where he sexually harassed women, probably because those instances were in even more formal settings and make him look like an even bigger creep.

What is truly misanthropic are apologists like yourself who give guys like this a pass because they write a nicely worded apology on medium after getting caught. Oh, he's soooo sincere; and what a good guy he is; and did you know that funded some LGBT initiative!

Half of the posts on this thread keep on bringing up the issue of workplace romance. It's a total red herring and a crock of shit. There are acceptable and appropriate ways to flirt and date in the workplace (if you must). All it takes is judgement and common sense. The vast majority of men deal with this just fine, and if you're one of them, you should be outraged. Assholes like McClure, and yes he is a total asshole -- that's his whole shtick after all -- poisons the well for us all. We must be unequivocal in renouncing this type of shit. If he wants redemption and kudos he has to earn it, an apology on medium is just the first (small) step. Any less, and you provide justification and cover for the next asshole to behave similarly. His success, contributions to the tech community, whatever, does not justify him demeaning and putting another human being in a shit position -- moreso because he has the power, and by his own admission, knowingly abused it to take advantage over someone is a weaker position. Apologies, no matter how sincere, don't make up for the years of anxiety, therapy, etc. that stuff like this can cause.

> He also brings up that drinks were involved, but practically every company/vc sponsored event in the valley has alcohol involved

So... he's not lying?

> That doesn't make it okay to proposition an attendee you talked to about an open job position afterwards over FACEBOOK and bring up said job as part of your come-on. I mean this is literally the textbook definition of sexual harassment.

Everyone knows that, including the one who did it (at least, now he does).

> McClure of course doesn't bring up this level of detail about all the other instances where he sexually harassed women, probably because those instances were in even more formal settings and make him look like an even bigger creep.

As evidenced by him calling himself a creep and that being the title of his post.

> What is truly misanthropic are apologists like yourself who give guys like this a pass

Did I give him a pass? No.

Did I say that what he did wasn't horrible? No.

Isn't it misanthropic to immediately assume those things about me when I hadn't given you even the slightest suggestion on what I thought of his behavior before this very reply, where I'm condemning it? Yes, it is misanthropic. You just want to think the worst of everyone, and It. Is. Awful.

> what a good guy he is; and did you know that funded some LGBT initiative!

You know? If I were like you, I could easily point out how this poor phrasing can be construed as homophobic, but I won't resort to that. Please.

> if you're one of them, you should be outraged.

I'm gay, and that I see the failings of the opposing side doesn't mean that I think the harassers aren't appalling.

> Assholes like McClure, and yes he is a total asshole -- that's his whole shtick after all -- poisons the well for us all.

There are many different types of assholes, the ones like McClure aren't the only ones "poisoning the well."

> Apologies, no matter how sincere, don't make up for the years of anxiety, therapy, etc. that stuff like this can cause.

Case in point.

> Other posters agree with my read on his apology.

This was a weird and non-sequitur opener, btw. Were you going for an appeal to popularity or something? For what it's worth, I thoroughly disagree with your read on his apology.

---

BTW, none of this answered my question.

I'd rather not turn this into a pedantic argument where we parse every word, sentence, and phrase. But I'll respond because I think we prob agree more than disagree and trust that you have good intentions and want a dialogue.

> So... he's not lying?

Yes, but my argument is that's besides the point; it's an irrelevant detail entirely to whether or not his actions were totally inexcusable.

> Everyone knows that, including the one who did it (at least, now he does).

Yes, which is why it's completely indefensible.

> As evidenced by him calling himself a creep and that being the title of his post.

Agreed, McClure is a big creep, but him admitting it doesn't buy him many brownie points in my book. He's admitting it because not doing so will make things even worse for him. He really has no choice in this regards. I'd like to believe he is genuinely sincere, but given his own admitted history of this type of behavior, and awareness of his own actions (which notably did not prevent him from curtailing his creepiness), my default is he is only trying to save face until proven otherwise.

> Isn't it misanthropic to immediately assume those things about me when I hadn't given you even the slightest suggestion on what I thought of his behavior before this very reply, where I'm condemning it? Yes, it is misanthropic. You just want to think the worst of everyone, and It. Is. Awful.

Pot meets kettle. What you are accusing me of doing, is what you are doing yourself to me, no?

Like you, I don't want to think the worst of everyone, because that's not a very fun world to live in. On the contrary, and like I've said repeatedly, I think McClure is the exception rather than the norm. The majority of men in SV and elsewhere don't behave like him and are not serial sexual harassers.

> You know? If I were like you, I could easily point out how this poor phrasing can be construed as homophobic, but I won't resort to that. Please.

I brought up the LGBT comment, because people are using 500 Startups's historical support of women, POC, and LGBT initiatives to support McClure. I'm pointing out how glib that line of defense is; that it is actually irrelevant; and makes his behavior look all the worse, especially because his actions are so textbook creepy -- not something you would expect from someone who sincerely believes in enfranchising those who have been historically marginalized.

> I'm gay, and the huge amount of false or exaggerated accusations is one of the many reasons I'm glad I am. And (because I know you're going to try to pull this thread), I'm not saying that the accusations against McClure were unfunded; he clearly admitted his blame.

That's great, and I'm a person of color, but that's irrelevant. His behavior is objectively shitty and must be called out if we want to progress to a better, more equal and civilized society. This is a legitimate issue in our society; I don't think you can go too overboard calling out this type of predatory behavior. It's a real issue with very real consequences for those who are victim to it.

Also, you mention "huge amount of false or exaggerated accusations", but by your own admission, and by McClure himself, all these accusations of him being a serial creep are true. So not false, and not exaggerated.

> There are many different types of assholes, the ones like McClure aren't the only ones "poisoning the well."

Here is where I disagree with you. There might be more more poisonous apples, but McClure is a real scumbag just by looking at what we know so far:

1) Serial history of this type of behavior 2) Self-awareness that his behavior is bad. 3) Admission that his intent was to take advantage of others. 4) All his accusers are women of color (according to Sarah)

> Case in point.

I don't know what you're trying to imply here.

> This was a weird and non-sequitur opener, btw. Were you going for an appeal to popularity or something? For what it's worth, I thoroughly disagree with your read on his apology.

Huh? You made the claim that my view was off-base and misanthropic. I disagree and cite similar views from others to back that point.

> BTW, none of this answered my question.

Let me be more clear then, he tried to delegitimize the harassment by bringing up irrelevant details (there were drinks involved, it was a small group of people, that he thought it was a social event, etc.), that are designed to water down the accusations, or at the least, are designed to give him some sort of cover to "explain" his terrible behavior.

Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, not anywhere and especially not in flamewar threads. We ban accounts that do this, so please post civilly or not at all in the future.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14680541 and marked it off-topic.

This nerd thought it's okay because he's rich now. Well at least now he knows his place lol.

I'm not a creep! Where's my trophy?

All those examples give you the same or more power over them.

When you're arrested, you have more power over the person who arrested you?

Not at all, until they express interest in you.

This is very down in the weeds, but let me provide an example.

>I'm going to place you under arrest, but if you give me your number, I might forget about it.

The power dynamic there favors the officer over you. If you don't yield to him/er, you could face prison. That demonstrates the issue with power dynamic leading to sexual harassment is that one with more power over the other coerces them into yielding sexual favors that they otherwise would not consent to.

Yes I understand that, but the power dynamic completely shifts when the powerful party shows interest. You might get yourself out of handcuffs by giving your or even a fake number if the powerful party is interested.

That's not an example of "shifting the power dynamic"

For an expanded real-life demonstration of this scenario, read up on the Oakland Police interactions with the woman who called herself "Celeste Guap".

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14680467 and marked it off-topic.

Damn, that's a good apology. The guy seems to be working on fixing his behavior.

Best part is the woman who confronted the CEO about being a serial sexual-harrasser and ended up CEO.

Edit: Re-reading I can't tell what his title was, only that she was CEO after the fact.

You mean his cofounder?

It's a strange notion that politics in a company are a good thing. Rewarding people for attacking the character of those above them is a race to the bottom. In this case it seems it was a co founder and not at all the situation you describe.

it does call her intentions into question.

she was not a neutral party and he should not have gone to her for advice.

[deleted]

I'm a man. I would not leverage my power in order to seduce her.

Aw man, there's no contact info in your profile :/ Could you drop me a mail with your details, so I can ensure I never end up working in the same environment as you.

But to differentiate ourselves from animals, we have this thing called 'civility'. We have the capacity to rationally think about our actions and discard primate style behaviours that do not function in modern society.

Not too many city dwelling men use their narrow focal vision and instinctive ability to calculate parabolic maths and wind speed to throw spears at dinner.

That means they should also curb their instinctive impulses to club the nearest female and drag them back to the cave by her hair...

Money can't buy class and all that.

It worked in Pretty Woman.

Dave's biggest mistake here was actually referring her for a job after this interaction. In the absence of that, it was a late night social event with alcohol where Dave made a pass on a girl (who may or may not have been signaling that this was appropriate as she was angling for a job) and she didn't show interest. End of story.

I know a former executive at Homeland Security who was also a federal prosecutor. He's now the head of security for a large company that owns luxury condos.

When I reported a former roommate for prostituting teenage girls (my friends), the security executive said they didn't want to know about it. This led to a dispute and the executive called five of my colleagues, intimidated them and told them lies about me.

The situation quickly devolved from there, involving a complicated tale of criminal and civil charges.

It was shocking to realize how many guys think its okay to offer girls money for sex, even if they're young.

This just feels like an save-face operation.

If these fellas want to show their commitment to changing it will require two things in my opinion:

1. A prolonged period of time without further incident.

2. Perhaps some dedicated effort to supporting, monetarily or otherwise, the elimination of this sort of behavior at the structural level? Start a campaign against sexism/harassment or something? Though to make it not appear disingenuous they ought to do so in a fake name--that's the problem when you're outed as a manipulator in a position of power, literally every subsequent move you make reads like manipulation. The McClure case as described in the NYT article wasn't too extreme and it is possible that some of it was misunderstanding and the he is being honest--it sounds like, for instance, 500 could have decided to end their conversations with Kunst for reasons beyond the message, but we'll never know. For instance I cannot help but feel the majority of this piece is McClure looking out for McClure and not giving a shit about actually being sorry. Of course I don't know that, but trust is difficult to regain.

Granted, McClure's fuck up does jive with the context he describes here, but it just becomes very difficult to believe any of these apology letters are genuine until some time has passed in which that is shown to be the case.

Does a campaign really accomplish anything? Campaigns just seem like a lot of virtue signaling without any actual substance.

How about organizations simply deal with the problem? When there is a complaint, investigate it. If it’s legitimate, discipline the perpetrator. If it’s an unfounded or malicious claim, discipline the accuser.

It’s interesting how SV makes the news for this but sexual harassment/sleeping to the top is standard operating procedure in Hollywood – the VC world makes The NY Times while the everyday stuff that happens in Hollywood would make your skin crawl.

While the SV problem exists, I can’t help but feel there is some agenda happening as other power-centric industries don’t seem to get the ink that SV does.

A campaign to change company HR policies can actually accomplish something. HR policies set expectations. All companies have a policy against dating within the chain of command. I bet that in the future, a lot of companies are also going to have language about not starting relationships with suppliers, customers, investors, etc. Given all of the mess with conferences, that could use a little policy, too...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com