Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”
cherylyeoh.com
cherylyeoh.com
Reading the "kudos" from men who thought he was a great guy for coming forward only after years of harassment came to a head was unpleasant.
But I strongly support them coming forward and telling their own stories. That has value and gives the accusations their proper perspective and gravity. It truly is different to be confronted with the details.
But, the direct apology to a victim should be clear and not place blame on them for how they interpreted a situation, "I'm sorry if you felt X" is the opposite of an apology, it is redirecting blame.
McClure's public apology, above all, should have been honest and sincere; more detail isn't strictly necessary, to be honest and sincere. It sounds like it wasn't honest or quite sincere. And, it sounds like his private apology, in this case, was decidedly dishonest and redirected blame.
But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.
>With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christine Tsai to begin a formal interview process with 500, where Christine and others on the team met with her. Ultimately, 500 decided not to offer Sarah a job. Again my apologies to Sarah for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not. It was my fault and I take full responsibility. She was correct in calling me out.
https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0
The NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre...) did not go into these specifics.
Below is all it discusses about her:
>In 2014, Sarah Kunst, 31, an entrepreneur, said she discussed a potential job at 500 Startups, a start-up incubator in San Francisco. 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.”
>Ms. Kunst, who now runs a fitness start-up, said she declined Mr. McClure’s advance. When she later discussed the message with one of Mr. McClure’s colleagues, she said 500 Startups ended its conversations with her.
> 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.
Dave made it sound like he'd hit on women in the context of offering them a job or investment. His one example re: Sarah Kunst specifically mentions he hit on her in a group.
All of the above -- while clearly unethical -- are a world away from getting drunk with an investee / business partner in her apartment, waiting until everyone else had left, and making aggressive physical advances towards her, including having to be told no multiple times.
Dave's message underplayed his behavior and, I think, really reinforces that he doesn't understand that what he did was wrong. He could have apologized for all of the above and only Dave, Cheryl, and the handful of people Cheryl told would have any idea he was referring to Cheryl.
I frankly think Dave was still hoping to underplay his behavior to keep his job. Also, the fact that 500 let Dave represent them in Australia with no warning to their Australian partners makes Christine Tsai seem complicit [1].
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kep...
edit: fixed Christine's name
While "less bad" is obviously still damaging and there is a lot to talk about there, what's given in the post sounds like a clear-cut crime.
Perhaps cynically, the only conclusion I can derive from this is them thanking him for not lifting the veil too high and revealing how the system has worked with these forces in play. In the absence of this I have to wonder if the SV VC industry is one big missing stair[1].
I have to provide a bit of mea culpa here. When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line of flirting which went overboard (to an unacceptable but understandable level). It's much worse than that. This is undoubtably sexual harassment and those differences/nuances matter.
All I can say is that I'm sorry I didn't believe it was more serious when first reported. I know it's difficult, but I wish more women had the courage to come forward with full stories so we could more accurately judge the context and actions involved (ex. with other VCs, like Chris Sacca).
"Flirting which goes overboard" is perhaps understandable from a co-worker or peer. It is absolutely, 100% an abuse of power when a VC does it to a potential investee. Imagine it from the woman's point of view. Suppose you had an idea you worked long and hard on, and then when you present it to a VC, he starts flirting with you? What do you do? Are you worried that spurning his advances will jeopardize your potential funding? Worse, it has to be incredibly demoralizing to want to be treated in the basis of your accomplishments but then know the VC is judging you through the primary lens of sex.
Like I said, that was my fault. This is a lot more serious than I first realized when stories surfaced.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-claims-500-...
Generally though, when going through the various 'keeping it legal', 'managing within the law', etc type classes that managers often have to take a large corporation as part of their training, the reasoning behind forbidding relationships between employees in a reporting hierarchy was always presented as being there to prevent the appearance of favoritism or impropriety.
The idea being that you may be blindly analyzing everyone's performance against the same metric but in answer to a complaint you would have to prove a negative, that you didn't tip the balance for your partner.
FWIW, I've been through sexual harassment awareness training 4 times at 3 companies. Part of settlement agreements when some yahoo screwed up (again).
My legal takeaway was the liability, to the company and to the harasser.
My personal takeaway is "Just don't."
I like clear boundaries, so that life is (more) predictable. There's some quote about "The mere appearance of conflict of interest is a conflict of interest." If there's the smallest doubt, anything less than a "Yes!", then the answer is a "No." Sure, I probably missed opportunities. But I'd rather be a dim bulb than a creepy stalker.
Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when being told "no", is not sexual assault; regardless of how either person felt about that. You can consider it awkward, ridiculous, or just normal human sexual behaviour. But it is not by any means assault.
That's not an accurate summary of her account. He'd been rebuffed repeatedly and clearly before forcing her into a corner and trying to kiss her. While the exact legal definition of "sexual assault" varies depending on the jurisdiction, if it came down to a court decision I don't like his chances.
I did nor interpret her text that way. To be fair, the whole text is very confusing for an article that purports to be "shedding light". The sentence that talks about the corner is this:
"On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me, and said (...)"
Now, this is extremely vague and can mean anything. He was already going out, but she was in the way, and the exit door was on a corner? He pushed himself without touching her (because the contact was later, during the kiss attempt)? This can be construed as assault or as a normal goodbye when leaving the house of somebody.
It is infuriating that this crucial part of the text (where the alleged assault happens), is extremely vague. Moreover, the fact that the text is riddled with bogus claims like "unwanted propositions", does not play in favor of its credibility. That's actually the whole point of propositions, to see if you are wanted or not! What does it matter if a proposition is wanted or not? This is ridiculous.
In the end, this noise plays against the victims of assault. When somebody is assaulted, she should go immediately to the police, not write a vague article three years later, mixing real problems with imaginary ones in the same list.
A normal goodbye is not forced on someone who has repeatedly said no to advances. The account was really quite clear, far clearer than McClure's apology. And yet you feel the need to make up details (where the door was etc) in order to try to excuse his behaviour, and call her a liar. Why is that? Why do you think she would lie in this situation and he would not?
Your response says more about you than her. Also, your incredulous response is the perfect illustration of why this woman didn't go the police and go public with her story years ago - she was in a vulnerable position, and would be slandered and called a liar if she made the claims public, and likely disbelieved by most of the men she worked with and then calumnied in court by well paid lawyers. The woman has zero incentive to lie, and frankly very little incentive in our current society to come forward, it is highly likely she is telling the truth in this situation simply because the balance of power likes with McClure and if she lied her career would be over (it will be harder even if she tells the truth).
The reaction on HN to these stories has been damning (for the global tech industry) - it's clear tech has a long way to go before even confronting these issues truthfully and without prejudice, let alone actually dealing with them.
The first step to dealing with this problem properly is not to write long screeds about how this woman might well be lying (the implication being this is a common occurrence, not an outlier), but to accept her story at face value - leave it to the police or those investigating the incident to verify it.
It's great that you wouldn't be terrified in this kind of situation. It's also important to know that not everyone feels the same way that you do, and that it's entirely reasonable and expected for someone to be scared shitless given the situation described. It's not their fault to feel that way, and they're not the ones who should "grow a pair". Everyone here needs to make sure that physical intimidation doesn't happen, and if you're not sure about whether it's wanted, get a clear approval before you storm onto someone.
<<Update>> I just spoke to Sarah Kunst and learned from her that at least 12 other women including me, have faced sexual harassment or advances from Dave of various degrees. Some of them are portfolio company CEOs like myself. They’re afraid to come out, but some eventually will. I had doubts publishing this, but after talking to Sarah, it is clear to me now that I can’t just sit silently and trust that Dave’s behavior will stop, or that we can just file his misconduct under “Dave being Dave.” This is about protecting other women who might otherwise be subjected to his future unwanted sexual advances.
Upvoted GP as a corrective measure.
I'm unclear whether this is because a) Silicon Valley is changing b) the user composition of HN is changing or c) the misogynist types are just feeling less confident. Regardless of the reason, it's a change for the better.
They never had any specific reason to do this; it was never the case that these guys had new information. They just felt consistently moved to remind us all that No-one Really Can Know All The Facts every time an allegation turned up, like they had just invented epistemology and wanted to tell the world.
I wonder how far back you mean; I haven't noticed that in past two or three years.
> It would have been flagged off the the front page in minutes.
Sometimes those topics get flagged simply because people might be getting tired of the pervasive guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude that's frequent with these stories, especially that they often turn out to be overblown, more complex than presented, or outright false.
She tweeted (now deleted) about Caldbeck a week before asking “Where’s the Outrage?” when it now sounds like she kept the real reason why McClure was put in a “limited” role in April for reasons unknown to even the 500 staff (and obviously the public until this past weekend) https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-claims-500-...
Hard for me to defend the public moral outrage she showed for the Binary cap situation when she clearly kept silent about similar issues with her own firm.
I love women. I am attracted to them constantly. But the thought of making sexual advances towards them when I have not received any sign of interest beyond friendship or business etc, repulses me.
How hard can it be to just be nice.
As men we really need to do better.
I think all that progress we made over the last 50 years was partly in my head.
My point being, I don't think it's that unusual for many men to simply not notice these signs you find obvious. To this day I can't tell. I'd be having dinner at a restaurant with my parents and my father would tell me that the waitress was unsuccessfully trying to flirt with me!
(I mean this as no defense of Dave. My fault is never noticing and never acting when it's welcome; I have never acted without verbal or written invitation. It took my current partner sending me a text saying that she was worried I wasn't into her, before I knew I could move further.)
If he was after something deeper, hire a dating consultant and find something worthwhile.
It just amazes me that people who have both the means and ability to get what they want do foolish stuff like he's doing.
Edit: I just finished reading the article. I hope this comment doesn't seem like I'm dismissing him as "Dave being Dave", because what he did was horrible. Plying her with copious amounts of alcohol and then backing her into a corner, refusing to leave her house. That's really messed up, like a frat boy's limited understanding of consent.
Plus, incidentally, this is Malaysia... I lived in Malaysia for several years in the mid 2000s. There's a lot of heavy social drinking there but there's also a predominant Muslim culture (the Malays) who in theory should be barred from imbibing alcohol. As such, Malaysians are, in my experience, very adept at mixing in social situations where copious drinking is occurring while still allowing for some members that abstain from doing so on cultural grounds not to fell out of place.
It isn't impossible to do. It isn't even difficult to do. In fact it's an absolute non-issue.
Now, this is not terribly relevant in the present context (this was her house, I presume the alcohol was taken from her drinks cabinet, & cetera) but you should never allow anybody to pressure you into drinking because of social pressure. That somehow you seem to believe that the social situation begets the behaviour is a bit alarming.
(By the way: any analysis on how the victim of abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim blaming, even if you add a disclaimer stating otherwise.)
That's not the point. The point is precisely the power and coercion. Paying someone or finding someone like-minded doesn't hit that button anywhere near the same way that assault and blackmail does.
If you're strong-arming women into sex, it's not about the sex, it's about the strong-arming. The very inappropriateness itself is the goal.
As far as I can tell it's just a way to demonize and dehumanize a group of really unpopular people in order to feel better about taking retribution against them. Comparable to saying, "She didn't murder her kids because of depression, but because she wanted them and her husband to suffer. The pain itself is the goal."
So is this really a rent-paying belief? Or is it rather a way to feel good about hating someone and absolve yourself from the responsibility to understand the internal experiences of people who do bad things?
This is important, by the way. If the goal is to feel good about hating people who did wrong, dehumanize away. If the goal is actually to prevent other people from doing wrong, you need understand accurately why the wrong was being done in the first place, and that's what I'm afraid isn't being done here.
I do this precisely because I want to avoid situations where my behavior and viewpoint will be compromised by the level of authority I wield.
The very point I'm attempting to make, anyway, is that if you hand even the best humans inordinate power they will abuse it. That's how power is. It's not about the people - it's about the power structures we inhabit.
Reference the milgram experiment, the stanford prison experiment, whatever you like. They're not definitive, by any means, but they show you what is possible.
"when you’re a star, they let you do it" - President Trump
As difficult as sexual harassment is to learn and teach, I imagine most smaller businesses / start-ups don't make much of an attempt, if at all. Obviously HR is lacking. This might be a good place for improvement for a start-up to tackle.
But in fact that was the point - that the devil's in the details and specifics really help. And the specifics in her case were clearly not cool. Kudos for putting them out there.
In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get." The problem for women with careers is that walking away entirely from a powerful man would mean walking away from all kinds of professional settings where she is likely to run into him. Cutting him out of her life entirely would be career suicide.
The one message we really need to get powerful men to get is this:
Working women are talking to you at all for the exact same reason working men are talking to you. And it isn't because they think you are hot. They are trying to make a business deal or further a career goal, not fulfill your wildest fantasies.
I think this is why so many men persist in saying things like "I just misread the situation." And we will keep hearing that until it is the cultural norm for men to assume that women they work with are there to work, and that's it.
I am not talking about normal situations where it is possible for clear, unambiguous communication to take place. I am talking about a gray zone that makes it inherently challenging. I have written about this before:
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zon...
And I am saying we need to work at fostering a culture where people in power default to an assumption that if there is any doubt, they need to err on the side of assuming "This is about business, not romance. Period." Because my firsthand experience and pieces like the one under discussion agree that, all too often, a woman just can't seem to adequately signal "romance is NOT on the table here" and also remain on good working terms with a man in power. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. It has nothing to do with asserting that men don't take no for an answer.
In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get."
Perhaps your intent was more nuanced than your literal text. Either way, men in general do not "consistently" keep pursuing after rejection, just because the female doesn't cut them out of their lives altogether.
If you go back and read the article under discussion, he repeatedly asked her to have wine with him. Sometimes she said no. Other times, she said yes and it went fine. She herself was confused as to whether or not he was hitting on her. It wasn't clear to her until it crossed some incredibly unambiguous line.
If they were not working together, a woman sometimes saying yes to wine and sometimes saying no but remaining on warm friendly terms could be called dating. Studies show that it takes women longer to warm up to sex than it does men. Most men are used to having to work at getting to yes romantically. And the usual way you get there is by repeatedly pursuing social interaction. If the social interaction goes well, your hopes that it might lead to sex are not dead yet.
Given that fact, it isn't crazy for a man to interpret these situations as a potential budding romance -- unless you posit that she was ONLY there to do business and needed contact with him because of his position of power.
I am generally pretty sympathetic to the man's side here, so it aggravates me when I so consistently get accused of BS like this. Because when I try too hard to make it clear I am not accusing men of anything, then I get called a rape apologist.
I keep waiting for my long track record of even-handed remarks on the topic to pay off and get me interpreted as not a man-hating bitch. I am beginning to think that is expecting too much of the world.
I feel strongly this is very much a situational problem. But no one seems to want to hear that. People are too busy lining up on the side of the accusers and planning witch hunts or on the side of the defenders and excusing the behavior. And then everything I say gets interpreted through a lens of "which side of this war are you on?" The answer is "Neither. I would like to broker a peace deal." And that message goes unheard by people whose minds are made up, and don't confuse them with the facts.
In reality, we seem to be in near-total alignment. Within a larger comment, you had one statement that seems over-generalized. After agreeing with the gist of your post, I mildly and respectfully challenged that one over-generalized statement.
That's not a big deal. It might catch a downvote or two, because HN is HN. But that's what normal healthy human conversation sounds like, outside of any particular echo chamber. It's not an attack, and not really even a defense.
Somehow you're now in a "witch hunt", or being called a "man-hating bitch", or otherwise under attack from the "other side", etc. I can't even... uhh... just, no... you're not. And if you feel like you have to take it to that level, in order not to be called a "rape apologist", then maybe you run with the wrong circles online.
Just because you have never heard of me before does not mean I do not routinely run into people who clearly know who I am when I have never heard of them. That isn't delusion on my part.
After advising you that you misunderstood and clarifying, you basically doubled down, thus positioning yourself as an adversary. Now you are attacking me and making a lot of derogatory comments. This does not back up your assertion that you were engaging in good faith and I am just overreacting.
If you and I were really on the same page, my clarification would have been the end of the matter, not the start of escalating aggressive remarks on your side.
I'm curious about the legal aspect of it. "Sexual assault" is a crime, right? The worst repercussions I hear from these stories are maybe a resignation at best. But if this is truly a crime shouldn't it be prosecuted?
On the other hand, this man has apparently a history of this behavior, so potentially there are similar actions in the US and people have yet to reveal them.
In practice if the victim doesn't want to testify there's usually no way to get a conviction so it won't be prosecuted. But the decision lies with the prosecutor.
(There are some exceptions- private prosecutions used to be the norm in English common law, but the US largely didn't seem to inherit that portion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sf... )
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-wh...
His apology speaks volumes about his process
Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"
Oh, that sounds creepy.
If its creepy to ask in some situation it must be even more creepy to do in that situation.
When a guy asks before touching me, and of course I'm already interested, it makes me melt. It is so sexy and it definitely improves the mood. I just want to point to myself as one data-point.
If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model walks up to you and asks if she can rub your shoulders. Would you be like, "Uh, no, by communicating with me you have completely killed my interest"?
Your example is spot on.
Explicit communication is not a barrier for me experiencing submissiveness because the fact I consented years ago to my partner doing such things to me does not make it any less fun.
I'm definitely willing to forgoe some fun on the first date to avoid having it done to me by someone I'm not into or don't feel safe around (separate variables!).
I hate to be this person, but yes that would kill my interest. I'd be put off by her asking to touch me without any attempt at building a rapport first - that's sort of weird, just like it'd be weird if you switched the gender roles. And if she established a rapport, I'd very slightly lean towards wishing she hadn't asked. All things being equal, yes, I'd prefer she just initiated without asking (after establishing a rapport).
I don't mean to invalidate your point, but I have this feeling you thought that example would sort of just "make it click", and it didn't (at least not for me). It seems like this is probably a preference thing.
I am the type of person who shies away from physical contact unless it is with people I feel close with. Physical attractiveness while important, is not enough to overcome the fact that I need to feel an emotional connection to let people near me in that way. If such a person asked me without building a connection with me, I'd turn cold towards them.
That being said, I don't claim to think that I am the norm or that my case is the case for every person. It is definitely a question of personal preferences and should not be treated as a universal.
(Writing this as someone who is happily married due to a series of verbal checks and confirmations. :) )
It's not about completely killing my interest, but my mood would be slightly lessened.
Also, there are some things where consent works better than others. Asking if you can give a back rub, that works pretty find. Asking if you can lightly brush their elbow, not so much.
Sorry but this is just absurd. Courtship doesn't (and will never) work that way.
Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships, about how all of our families and parents met and fell in love, and I'm honestly a little offended by your suggestion.
Im a woman and it works well for me. Do you have a specific technical reason for thinking it wont work?
> Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships
Saying explicit communication is useful and best-practice is not saying that everyone who doesn't do it is evil or every time it wasn't used someone was hurt. It's just a useful method for avoiding hurting people.
Yeah, it's robotic and, in most courtship contexts, weird. If a woman said "hey, I want you to ask permission before making any physical contact", I would certainly respect that, but I would find it odd and would probably be looking for a way out. Simply because "odd" means "red flag." Though I suppose it depends on the girl and how it's presented. I've never experienced that though, and my impression is that most girls I was dating wanting me to make the first move and read their nonverbal signals. That was certainly a learning process.
Now maybe it does work for you. But I think what people are saying (and I agree with them) is that it is very unusual for that expectation to exist in the context of courting. Thinking back to all my past relationships (including the one that led to my marriage), I can't think of a single one who wouldn't have been weirded out if I asked permission to put an arm around her, touch her neck, or go in for a kiss (in a setting that most people might find those actions to be an option). Everyone sitting here with me agrees (3 guys including me, 3 women, all early 30's).
Maybe my circle of friends is just different then yours in some fundamental way (we're all physicians, who maybe tend to be a bit more direct). But I think you'll find that most people think your position on this issue is too rigid and mechanical.
but none of this exists in a vacuum. context is everything and i don't think there's a one size fits all for what would be considered creepy or not in the dating/relationship world. it depends on each other's attraction to one other, situation, mood, blah blah blah. sometimes it's romantic and bold(!) and other times it's creepy af.
THAT SAID, i think it's absurd that 1) given their working relationship and the hierarchy and 2) his knowledge of her current bf and the fact that it wasn't a date that he'd think any of that any of his actions were okay. and even doubly so if she refused your first advance. i mean how can you not read a situation like that?
my .02
Honestly, that's just not realistic. Subtle touching is a key part of rapport and bonding (even in a platonic setting between men). It would be extremely bizarre if after a woman laughs at a joke I stopped and said "is it okay if I gently touch you on the elbow for a second as you laugh?"
I'm a huge fan of consent (ex. I almost always ask before kissing anyone) but that doesn't mean we need to extend it to absolutely everything. Humans are set up to be able to send touch-based signals which can escalate while allowing plenty of exit points.
We don't need hard rules like asking before ever touching another person (what if I accidentally brush against someone walking through a bar?). We need better training on reading social cues and a culture which calls people out when those cues are ignored.
A key part of healthy, mature flirting is leaving plenty of exit points and respecting them. Ex. it's normally fine to brush your leg against someone's leg. If they're not interested, they'll quickly pull away and it shouldn't cause too much discomfort. If they are, they'll maintain the contact.
TL;DR bodies can communicate. The problem isn't with these communications being non-verbal, but with people willfully ignoring those communications.
It's not bonding. It's a power thing, I think. "I can touch you, but if you call it out, then you're the one who is reacting and being 'sensitive'". (reversed, obv).
You may think it's an important part of platonic settings between men, but.. eh, stay away from me.
Accidentally brushing someone in a crowded bar is a red herring. (Unless it's an 'accident'.) That's completely different than invading someone's space to touch their elbow.
That's totally fine. I'm guessing you send off signals that you're uncomfortable with it.
Part of social skills is knowing how to read those signals and respecting them. There are definitely people who I take pains to not touch (due to the signals they send), even in a crowded bar.
I'll tell you it's definitely not a power thing. Most of the time, it is somewhat reciprocal. If it's not, then any well-adjusted person backs off.
"You're weird"
"I read signals well, therefore I wouldn't trigger this"
Maybe you do. That's great. Then again, maybe you don't and don't realize it.
The tech industry has a well known bias toward somewhat not socially adjusted people, or at least, not neurotypical, and the massive influx of money hasn't put the breaks on manipulators who are just there for the money and power.
So you get people who don't read signals well, and you get people who read signals and blow right through them on purpose. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.
Like, it's not mysterious magical rocket science. Leave a graceful exit path, start small and safe, and gauge their response before escalating. If you're not a dickwaffle, this'll get more positive responses without coming across as creepy or pressuring. If you're not making a game of pushing boundaries or starting with a huge power discrepancy, this process fails really gracefully. Like, really gracefully. Neurotypicals have probably done this dance with you without you or them noticing it.
What about when at a nightclub? What about women who rely on easily misinterpret-able body language?
What if two people have totally consensual intercourse where one has more power over the other one?
The issue I take here is that people pretend like the issue is black and white, while it's incredibly nuanced. The other issue is that when gender comes into play, people become emotional, I would love to talk about this topic as if instead of sex the guy demanded money from the women in exchange for the deal, then I feel we could have a much more rational conversation about this.
Though, I'm not one to force myself onto someone like that, we all have feelings, emotions and desires. It's not always easy to read a given situation. And the those outlined in TFA are definitely over the line.
However, Level A and Level B outlined near the bottom of the article takes it too far. Treating people like children is not going to solve anything, it's just going to promote further awkwardness, fear and resentment.
Suggestions like Level A and Level B are sucking the life out of life. When implemented, they punish everyone just because a small minority don't know how to set their own boundaries and respect the boundaries of others.
There might be more anxiety involved in trying to find the line and getting as close to it as possible. Is a shoulder rub allowed? Can I touch her arms? Can I make a suggestive joke? I'd definitely be more anxious trying to keep that straight in my head.
You're in a comment thread about sexual assault for reference.
This has nothing to do with "men forums," thanks. People I know working in tech actually think holding eye contact is harassment. I had a female coworker complain about the vibe of another coworker who was clearly attracted to her; just the vibe, imagine how that affected other coworkers when that got around? You're free to dismiss this sentiment, but it's still something on the mind of a large group of well meaning guys.
Again, enumerating detailed descriptions feels like a good solution for everyone.
The guy clearly has an interest in you. There's nothing specific you can accuse him of, but he makes you uncomfortable. By persisting despite your attempts at rebuff he's implied that he doesn't respect your boundaries.
Maybe it'll turn out that he'll leave you alone entirely. He hasn't done any one thing you can accuse him of. But he's giving off a "vibe" (which is an inarticulate way of saying "engaging in subtle behaviors") that in your past experience have been a prelude to anything from uninvited touching to stalking to physical attack. Thus his presence makes you anxious and interferes with your ability to do work because your brain is in constant fear/alert mode.
Is this a tenable situation?
Hopefully that puts your terror as a guy in perspective.
In most of these cases we hear about it's very, very clear that someone was using their position of power to attempt to coerce others. If you don't do that, you have nothing to feel terror about.
Outright deletion of comments (or comment text) is comparatively rare and always done by authors themselves.
Rather than take this as an opportunity to bring someone onto their side, I was met with a barrage of down votes and flaggers for doubting the wrong narrative.
This kind of community censorship hinders progress.
You seemed like you were asking in good faith, unlike a lot of other commenters in here, so I tried to legitimately engage you. But you never responded to my comment to let me know if I missed the mark or not.
If the person who you proposition only has to consider the singular question of whether or not they are interested in you their decision will be natural and unforced.
Anyone in a workplace has to constantly consider how this interaction will help or harm future prospects and even if no power differential exists may feel pressured. Many people are weak and may feel dissatisfied or put upon, many are shitty at expressing themselves, asserting themselves, or even at analyzing their own feelings. Then people have to work together after inevitably some of those interactions go bad.
People express this issue as its some complex minefield. It's easy. Just don't do it. Get a hobby and meet people there.
Go to work do whatever you are paid to do and find romance on your own time.
It's also not hard to conceive of a person who wants a power relationship with a strong, motivated, and ambitious person. That being said, where are you likely to meet someone who is grinding out the hours to reach success?
None of this is to say your proposed approach is invalid. It's an approach that works for some people. I just don't think it's realistic to expect that it's going to be widely followed. As this article notes:
"Workplace romances are commonplace. Statistics indicate that anywhere from 40-47% of employees surveyed had been involved in a workplace romance. Beyond the 47% involved, about 20% indicated they were receptive to an office romance."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-dating/20...
Second question: did 500 Startups foot the bill (the allegations are kryptonite to their brand)?
Yes, there is generally an expectation that men initiate romance, and that is an unfair burden both on men (who have to do the propositioning) and women (who have to decline unwanted propositions). For game-theoretic reasons, this is difficult to change, but it is changing slowly.
In the mean time, restrictions on how to initiate disproportionately affect men, and a lack of restrictions disproportionately affects women. Even more so in situations of gender imbalance (look up "Petrie Multiplier" for more on this). I believe it's for this reason that some men are resistant to "err on the safe side" type policies; as long as they are expected to initiate, they can't succeed without taking risks.
But it's impossible to address this without also including the effect of power imbalance. Even in a world where women initiate 100% of the time, men would in almost all cases still be more physically powerful, and sometimes hold other kinds of social or institutional power. This power can be used to coerce, assault or rape but, even if it isn't, the consequences of a power disparity can be an implicit part of the equation (cf "I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go").
So, what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Sarah Kunst? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a potential employer that made it more difficult for her to say no. Worse still, "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" makes that relationship explicit.
And what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Cheryl Yeoh? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a physically stronger man alone with her in her bedroom, and then forcing himself on her when she said no. I repeat: he could only have done this because he was physically stronger, and even if he didn't, the possibility was there.
So to anyone who's wondering if this means men hitting on women is now outlawed, I hope this can provide a healthy framework for thinking about it. It's okay to hit on people, but avoid doing so in situations with a power imbalance that could mean there are consequences for saying no. And also if they do say no don't assault them.
Unfortunately, as a man, you probably have the ability to physically overpower most women if you want. Hopefully you don't want, but it's worth considering that you have that ability, and she may not know whether you're going to use it.
For a shorter and funnier version of this line of thinking, I suggest this clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
However, I object to a couple points. First, there is almost always potential for consequences for saying no, so long as you allow a physical power imbalance.
Second, and most importantly, you are neglecting that power imbalance forms an entire framework for human sexual interaction, one which is as old as our species. This is at a minimum a biological imperative (hormonal, genetic) and an emergent psychological imperative (physical size/strength/endurance differences). These natural drives are responsible for most men desiring power and most women desiring powerful men.
Now suddenly, over the last few decades, we've turned this intrinsic human nature on its head, and I think that is why this is such a difficult topic for people to grasp/discuss.
I think people underestimate how far removed the current push for gender parity is from human history. This is more of an experiment than most people realize.
Thanks for writing this, takes courage!
This is a systemic problem in our industry, and we need to all realize this, so that we can start teaching each other what behavior is and is not appropriate in a very clear, concise, and precise manner.
I read somewhere, a while ago, that assholes moved in herds to Wall Street in the 80s-90s, and now they've decided to move to California.
However, from my observations, to flat out list a finite list of behaviorism, will manifest yet another set of behaviorism, which will manifest another list.
I do not view this as a simple systematic problem, but rather a deep-wedged symptom of a sick society. We all are complicit.
A society that is focused on results and ego and success will always encourage such behavior (of debasing others, exploiting others regardless of their being — even white men are exploited and debased by other "higher-paying" white men). No set of rules will change this until we change our society's culture.
The culture cannot change through scolding, but rather a deep, opening conversation that will be conversed again and again until people find no use for the word harassment or sexual harassment or the desire to hurt or debase others in name of success.
1. With respect to VCs preying on female entrepreneurs, this doesn't shock me in the slightest. Wherever you have this huge power imbalance, coupled with large numbers of people who are extremely reluctant to jeopardize their "big break", you will see this kind of abuse. It was/is common in Hollywood, and I think the Catholic Church sex scandals have a ton in common. If you have a situation with that type of power imbalance, unless you have a very detailed and specific process to deal with predators, that kind of abuse will happen. 2. I think what Susan Fowler described re: Uber has a ton to do with the extremely aggressive culture Uber set up. In fact, a lot of the "villains" in Susan's story were, surprisingly, women. I think the tough question is how to you "rein in" that type of aggressive culture when it was so successful for Uber originally. 3. Finally, with regards to how women are treated in general in tech, I think a lot of the unconscious biases people hold, how people react differently to men's ideas vs. women's, need to be discussed more openly and with a goal of making everyone more aware of their own prejudices without fear.
Wow, that's really incredible optimism. I'd be more than happy if there was a 50/50 split between the kinds of apples but I fear that it is more along the lines of 20/80 or worse based on what I see and hear around me when no women are within earshot.
Are you kidding? I wouldn't have enough time in a day. Just some stats, 1 out of every 6 women has been the victim of attempted rape or rape.
I'm aware of several such cases in the last 2 years alone, none of these resulted in an arrest or a court case and I have absolutely no reason not to believe the women.
Besides that I do not have the right to go to the authorities on behalf of someone who does not want to go to the authorities herself because more often than not they are part of the problem and tend to make the whole affair into an exercise in victim blaming.
This is an extremely complex issue and even if we can all agree that it is not normal there is no set recipe for how to deal with such situations.
That would be good news. But I fear that it isn't. Here's an experiment for you: ask the women you are close to in your life if they've been raped or assaulted. The answers may surprise you. If you feel brave ask someone who spent time in an orphanage or jail or some other place where they have little access to representation and are at the mercy of people that have power over them.
That is not the number under dispute. There are two fundamentally different theories about what is going on: 1) Most men sexually assault women, or 2) A minority of men sexual assault a large number of women. Based on statistics of victims, it is impossible to distinguish between these two scenarios. However, understanding which scenario we are in is vitally important to forming our response. You seem to believe that we are in scenario 1.
I will admit, I do not have any evidence handy that we are in scenario 2, because it is not a proposal I have ever seen seriously suggested. However, you have presented no evidence that we are in scenerio 1, which seems to be the less believable situation. Until such evidence is presented, I will continue to believe that it is a minority of men that cause a majority of sexual assault [0].
[0] Yes, not all sexual assualt is by males, but I am reasonably confident that it is enough that this general statement holds.
What I've seen professionally makes me believe this, definitely. And that view is consistent across 30 years in the industry with stints in various sub-branches of IT and/or fields that require IT services (which is pretty much anything nowadays).
Let me reprhase this in a more direct way so there is no misunderstanding:
I have yet to see a female friendly company in IT.
If you know of such companies it would be nice to list them.
If there is such a thing I would love to be surprised, I suspect that it is going to be the ones run by women, but they are rare enough that I have not had much exposure to them.
This is a very different claim than what you made above. Even within a company, a minority of people can cause a majority of the problems. Indeed, for any toxic behavior I can think of, it only takes one employee to take down a team, and the problem often spreads beyond that team. I see no reason to believe sexual assault is any different.
Again, the question of if we are in situation 1 or 2 is vitally important. If we are in situation 1, then we are looking at a generational struggle to change men's attitudes towards women. Essentially, we need to wait for the old guard to die off, then wait for the new guard to die off, then hope that our actions made the new-new guard behave respectably.
If we are in situation 2, then the above solution is almost useless. Instead, we are facing a managerial problem where we fail to root out the bad actors. As with any other toxic behavior, this can cause them to contaminate the entire environment. Of course, in this context, "manager" does not only refer to the managers of companies, but also the "managers" of social communities. Effectively, in this scenario, the problem description is not so much that too many people rape, but rather that we are ineffective at dealing with those who do.
Seriously, what the fuck. If you don't care enough to do anything, at least have the decency to stop hand wringing about it on the internet.
If every time I hear about a woman being harassed I would get myself mixed up in the case I don't think I'd have many friends left. Just in the last year alone one of my female friends was raped in her own home and if she wanted me to do something I'm pretty sure she'd be more than willing to ask, all I can do instead is to be there when she wants to talk about it.
What bothers me is that people seem to think this stuff is rare.
What I can do - and do - is when something is happening around me and I'm aware of it when it is happening to step in, but after the fact if you are not a party to something then you are not going to help matters if you on your own without the consent of the victim approach the authorities, and you also don't have the right to take matters in your own hands.
So seriously, what the fuck, realize that if you are not in any way shape or form a party to an event that you may not have the right - and definitely do not have an obligation - to approach the authorities.
So you will 'never stop trying', but tell me, how often have you been there when it happened? For me those instances are a small fraction of the number of cases that I'm aware of and I suspect that the whole reason this number is so low is because of how these things play out, see the linked article here: mr. McClure did not bother to harass her until he'd isolated her. Who would stop him other than the woman?
(I'm male but) I have and let's just say, there's a female "locker room" as well just down the hall from ours.
Sure, women talk dirty too, rather less of them are guilty of sexual coercion and assault then their male counterparts, I would hazard
Of course there is the problem that it could be hidden (IMs or whatnot). Hence my optimism :-)
It isn't enough for the assholes to stop assholin'. We all have the opportunity to contribute positively by moving the norms, and we will all be better for it.
Otherwise, most of us have already been doing all we can. We don't do bad things, and we don't enable people doing bad things. It's ok to admit that we didn't cause this nor have the ability to fix it.
For example, there's lots of victim-blaming in these threads. We have an opportunity to speak up and counter it. In so doing, we support the brave women on the front lines.
Upon trying to figure out what's going on I think we need a meta-instruction for comments here?
Like, perhaps the intention is to keep comments focused more on the general problem of sexual harassment in the industry and to not start making a bunch of assertions regarding the specifics of the author's story?
Although I personally think khazhoux's comment pointing to alcohol being a common factor is a pretty good one.
I'm actually having trouble understanding where the line is here so personally going to run away from the thread, but I think a better indication of the ground rules might be helpful to everyone.
I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're providing tools for abusers to justify and minimize their abuse. Obviously flagging isn't going to solve the problem on its own, but maybe if I go into more detail it will help a little more.
Both comments focus on what their authors imagine themselves doing in a similar situation:
> …I never drink more than a wee amount (one glass max) when I'm with co-workers in any sort of work setting.
> …I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years, especially not someone who has the strength of will to start a company.
Then they generalize their imagined behavior to what all people should do or should be able to do:
> But on general principle, he shouldn't have gotten drunk (which I assume he was??), nor she.
> Just because someone else did something wrong is no reason to carry it with you for years.
Who are these comments being written for? In both cases, the person being imagined is the person being abused. It's possible to read these as advice for people potentially facing abuse: don't drink, don't dwell on the past.
There are a few problems with this interpretation. First of all, they take abuse as a fixed part of the world that we just need to deal with: "Because in my world people do that." The conclusion is that people being abused need to change their behavior to avoid it. But the truth is that the abusers are the ones who need to change their behavior.
The second problem is that the advice doesn't work. People are abused whether they drink or not. Memories and thoughts have a way of surfacing whether you intentionally dwell on them or not. If you can't imagine an event haunting Cheryl for years after she has explicitly told you that one has, the problem is with your imagination, not her experiences.
So as advice, these comments are relatively weak. Is there a sense in which they have a stronger function? Let's see:
"I never drink more than a wee amount" isn't excusing Dave's behavior directly. But it makes a strong implication -- if you do drink more than that, you're less responsible for what happens. Do you think Dave kept pouring scotch into her glass on accident? He knows society has a tendency to excuse behavior from a drunk person that they'd never accept from someone sober.
"I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years" doesn't mean Dave's behavior was inconsequential. But it makes a strong implication -- that the consequences of his behavior would be much less if Cheryl didn't make such a big deal out of it.
Both of these perspectives enable abuse. Abusers intentionally use alcohol to provide cover for their behavior. Even when they were planning to do it all along. Dave McClure abused his power to put Cheryl Yeoh into a position she "shouldn't" be in -- so he could turn around and use the very fact she was in such a position to minimize people's reaction to his abuse!
Then, when she admits how much the abuse affected her, he relies on comments like yours to remind us that his role in this was incredibly minor -- just one event that probably lasted less than a minute. The real abuse was just in her head. I don't think you would put it this bluntly, but that's the story the abuser is hoping you take away.
That is to say, the primary function of comments like these is not actually providing advice to people who might be abused. Following this advice will not help them. Whether intentionally or not, their primary function ends up as tools that abusers use to justify and minimize their abuse. That's why I flagged them -- to take these tools out of abusers' hands in whatever small way I can.
And it's not that different people will react to an event in different ways: it's the idea that you could always have reacted to an event in a certain way. If you didn't react to it that way, that's on you -- it's not the abuser's fault.
Put enough of these "mere ideas" together and you get the culture responsible for this environment of abuse that women are facing. We should try to chip away at as many bad ideas as we can!
You're right that flagging may not be the right tool to use here, though. Everyone says they want a reply, but in practice that tends to produce long discussions that rarely end up anywhere useful. What would you suggest? Maybe a mod could weigh in?
No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has any right to shout me down or shut me up.
”I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” — Richard Feynman
Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a thread about sexual harassment, just like some comments are inappropriate at a funeral.
Hacker News is one of the last places in the internet where I think there is (comparatively) a minimum of tribalism in discourse. What qubex and I are pushing back against is the idea is branding anyone who brings up this topic (or any topic, really) as essentially "the enemy" regardless of their intent.
I don't blame you or consider you "the enemy". Your understanding of victim blaming is simply wrong, and I encourage you to look it up on Google if you don't believe me.
There is nothing mysterious. Just don't be crude. Don't buck convention. Know accepted social norms.
I have been told stories of companies with no-dating rules where inevitable attraction and secret love affair between coworkers led them to both quit in order to go public with their romance.
That's not what I'm talking about. Obviously, nature is powerful, and attraction between coworkers can just simply happen. I'm not talking about accidents, which are hopefully few and far between. I'm talking about conscious choices that men make.
It's not like there aren't equally convenient ways to meet women to those at work. If you want a (chaotic) hookup, get on Tinder or Craig's List or the local club. If you want the thrill of the meat market, try Match. If you'd like to get married, goto eharmony.
I do think there is a possible SAAS app here for employees to report these incidents in a confidential way and to help shape the culture by providing an immediate notification to the McClure-types that their behavior is both being tracked and isn't going to be tolerated. This would promote immediate action on the part of the company instead of needing a dozen or so claims, a viral blog post, and or a nytimes article before action is taken.
That's not the definition of "sexual assault". It varies by jurisdiction, and has been discussed extensively elsethread. "Unwanted touching" and "sexual assault" overlap. More important than anatomy is consent.
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior
that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual
activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy,
child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.
So, backing someone into a corner and forcibly attempting to kiss them might not bring a sexual assault charge unless accompanied by groping. Nevertheless, such actions can still result in charges of battery or false imprisonment.
I agree that we need clearer collective understanding of the issues involved. However, the main concern remains consent. It's not "kisses OK, groping not OK" -- coerced intimacy is always problematic because it is coerced, no matter which statutory lines are crossed.
This should be generalized to include both sexes. I often see insulting or degrading comments about men by people in the tech world, especially with terms like "mansplaining".
As a socially clueless gay man, I was hoping someone could help elucidate the most problematic parts of McClure's behavior here. The two factors that stand out for me are
1) McClure controlled the funding of the agency Yeoh was heading, so he was in a position of power
2) McClure is a man and Yeoh is a woman, so McClure can be assumed to be more physically imposing
Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's behavior inappropriate? In any other context, I would consider asking someone something a third time after two "no"s to be an example of annoying badgering, but not necessarily harassment.
No, it would not be, at all.
"At this point, I led him to the door and told him he needs to leave. On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me,"
You would be incorrect. It's not really a grey area.
> I have experienced similarly persistent (or arguably even more persistent) unwanted sexual advances from other men, but I certainly didn't feel "assaulted".
Good for you. But legally in the country I live in, what she described was assault. And if you experienced the same thing, it would also be assault. If you didn't feel it was assault, then you don't have to report it, of course, but that doesn't change what it is.
When someone says no, you can't decide that what they really meant is "would you please grab me and forcibly kiss me". That is not "annoying badgering".