6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment
observer.com
observer.com
And yes, I recognize that this hasn't been "proven", but really what's the chance than there's a shadowy cabal of women who start companies in order to target individual VCs. These women have little to gain from this and everything to lose. Occams razor is that he's at the very least doing something that's inappropriate.
I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not naming names or specific details to protect anonymity) who have experienced repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other. That's not as egregious as groping (one of the accusations in this article), but that's still sexual harassment by the letter of the law and slimy as hell every other way.
Another common theme I noticed is when the man in question stays in the gray area where individual incidents aren't clearly over the line and might not qualify legally as sexual harassment, but in context and in aggregate it's clear why a woman would feel very uncomfortable. How do you confront something like that when they can just question your perception of reality?
In all but one case, the women decided against confrontation because the man was in a much more powerful position (such as a general partner of a VC fund), and the women were afraid of retribution and risking killing their careers by taking a principled stand. They all wished they could do more, but decided they didn't want to be martyrs. That's a bad position to be in.
I think it's damning of the industry that these women have accepted silence on the matter as part of the burden of being a woman and pursuing this line of work. Granted I'm looking at this with N < 10, but everyone I've talked to shares the sentiment that it's a pattern, not a coincidence.
I'm hopeful that everything going on around Uber will move the needle enough that more people are willing to come forward.
Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single.
Yes, and even if the person being rejected poses no risk it's nice to spare their feelings with what amounts to a little white lie. It helps everybody save face and ideally allows the conversation to move on to other things.
Last weekend she received an unsolicited, nearly naked photo from the same male co-worker. Needless to say, he is no longer at the company.
This is sad on two counts. First, it's sad that my relative felt she couldn't report because she thought it would harm her career. It sickens me to say this, but maybe she was right. Maybe it would have harmed her career.
Second, and I've seen this before, she had to endure further harassment until he really escalated so she could report something significant enough that she felt it wouldn't harm her credibility.
Though we're discussing this through the lens of the tech industry, the most horrifying thing of all is that this isn't even a problem that's unique to tech.
It's pervasive. Still.
What prompts this kind of mentality?
Maladjusted chuds being maladjusted.
Stalking seems to be some form of obsessive behavior, and I suspect that sending pictures is an early stage of such behavior. It also describe a cure for it, ie similar cures we have when obsessive behavior makes someone a criminal.
Definitely agree with you there. I added the extra "made clear they had a significant other" since it would help to push the line even further into unacceptable territory. I don't mean to imply that the relationship status is a necessary condition for unacceptability. The fact that women have learned to use the existence of an SO as an escape rather than outright saying no reflects poorly on the men that caused the learned behavior.
IANAL, but legally it's not sexual harassment because they don't work at the same company.
Something is only sexual harassment in two cases: 1) a supervisor offers something to a subordinate in exchange for sexual favors 2) a company is found to have created a hostile work environment. In both cases it's the company that's liable, not the person or people doing the harassment. There may be some extra rules that exist in individual states, but this is the general idea.
Certainly it's bad behavior, but because there isn't any real power imbalance between entrepreneurs and VCs the problem can mostly be dealt with socially (as has happened here) rather than being a situation that requires some specific legal intervention. (Or at least that's the general legal theory.)
For example, catcalling on the street isn't illegal. It's still sexual harassment, it's still unethical, but it's not illegal.
Apparently in some instances and places it is. Follow the link.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/29/catca...
Unfortunately this isn't true, from a legal point of view; in many jurisdictions, the legal definition of SH is specifically tailored (and constrained) to "the workplace".
Mind you I'm not talking about what's "slimy", "invasive", or what infringes on one's natural rights as a human being or anything about that. But rather, the legal definition. Which doesn't always jibe with what people would or like it to be.
What I meant is that the EEOC decided to draw a line, and aside from the "in the context of a company" requirement, the behavior in the stories I've heard definitely crosses that line rather than just being an uncomfortable and sketchy situation.
I would argue however, that because VC's are holding the money and entrepreneurs are trying to raise, it might not be as bad as a boss/employee power dynamic, but the power is certainly held by the VC in the situation.
- The vast majority of highly successful companies don't raise venture. VCs need equity, entrepreneurs don't need money.
- The vast majority of companies that raise VC don't succeed.
- The vast majority of VC funds have lower than market returns.
I think the real situation is more that a lot of inexperienced founders glom onto VCs because they think that not having money is what's keeping them from succeeding.
There is also a common belief that the fact that VCs are predominantly male is creating a power imbalance that's keeping women from being more successful, despite the fact that the empirical evidence from other industries seemingly shows that there isn't much correlation between the sex of the gatekeepers and who they choose to back. E.g. LP is pretty gender balanced and most VCs are male, most literary agents and publishers are female but most published authors are male, etc. If there were more female VCs then it's possible that more women would get funded, but I think right now that theory is more of a truthclaim than anything else.
The power imbalance is pretty obvious in that kind of scenario. It's less of an imbalance if the entrepreneur is also wealthy and just raising money to share risk or build alliances.
Point is, if you have multiple millions of dollars, "do nothing" is always on the table, which isn't so for many founders.
I don't see any power imbalance that exists within the relationship here. Compare this with the laws that prevent a therapist from dating a client, which are in place because one party can take advantage of the other or blackmail them or have them involuntarily committed. That's a power imbalance.
I also think this is a very orientalist view of the industry. How many founders actually raise institutional money off just a deck each year, who don't otherwise have the skills to earn a lot of money consulting or whatever?
I'm not trying to defend the behavior here in any way, I just think that the reason why it's wrong for a VC to aggressively proposition a founder or whatever is different than, for example, what makes it wrong for an employer to have a relationship with an employee.
?? Sorry?
There is a huge power imbalance between entrepreneurs and VCs.
While I don't know the details of what happened here, there's nothing wrong or illegal about approaching someone and I'm more than a little miffed that anyone would consider it necessary (or good) to make "unwelcome advances" illegal. Yes, even unwelcome advances to married women.
human sexuality isn't that cut and dried.
However, it seems to me, as a non-American, that the US is pretty hysterical on this topic. Humans make each other uncomfortable sometimes, some situations are inherently awkward, emotional anguish is inflicted on good people (I've had to fire a few... that's horrible on both sides of the desk)... there's no reason society should be ascribed the duty to guarantee that nobody ever finds themselves in situations they are not comfortable in.
As I mentioned, my partner pushed my boundaries a bit, but I'm doubleplusgood happy she did. In hindsight, my initial reticence was an error, and by persisting she allowed me the opportunity to correct that. Now our lives are significantly enhanced as a result. I don't see why such behaviour should be subject to censure. Did it make me uneasy? In a transitory way, yes. But it's part and parcel of existing in a social fabric.
Context is important.
yes, technically you could consider rape to be an 'unwanted advance', but no reasonable person would ever characterize it as so. The very fact that it's characterized as an unwanted advance tells you it's not sexual harassment, it's just someone chasing another person.
http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rig...
> Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Very generally, “sexual harassment” describes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
Federal law appears to disagree with you.
Bosses, professors, doctors, interviewers and every other situation I can think of have a bright line where it's not okay to try and romantically or sexually engage someone when you're in a context that you have power over them, even if it is ephemeral. VCs are no different.
I'm not even going to try and address groping or other forms of harassment, which are wrong even when a power dynamic doesn't exist.
This seems like a slippery slope. I can imagine malicious but careful predators who constantly test boundaries in a conscious effort to achieve a sexual goal. But I can also imagine a poor socially awkward guy who just has a severe crush, but is doing his damnedest not to say or do anything to act on it- and a woman who would be particularly sensitive to his unwanted romantic desire.
Both would be "incidents that don't cross the line but in aggregate make the woman feel uncomfortable", but the latter deserves understanding and _perhaps_ a calm discussion, but definitely not punishment.
I'm just saying, even the gray area has a spectrum- but any policies people come up with to handle this, would need to establish a threshold higher than just "a woman felt uncomfortable around a specific man", or perhaps a gentle grade of responses.
The point here was incidents that don't cross "the line", which means the location of the line is suddenly up for debate, so you don't even know if you did something wrong.
If the line is up for debate, you would know if you did something wrong - unless you're not following the debate. If you're not following the debate, you really don't have anyone to blame but yourself.
Women are already reluctant to come forward when subjected to overt sexual harassment, let alone "gray area" harassment. I don't think anyone has to fear any kind of slippery slope here.
It is describing a continued change of standards over time, with no clearly defined end-goal other than "nobody ever feels uncomfortable".
> Towards what?
Towards a point where a woman can punish a man for being socially awkward because he has a crush.
> Will women eventually begin to feel uncomfortable about situations that are clearly not sexual?
"Clearly" is a useless word here. And sexual? What about romantic? What about platonic, but more than is welcome?
They already do feel uncomfortable as a result of unwanted attention. I've seen it happen. The person I was replying to was suggesting a world where that is actionable.
> Women are already reluctant to come forward when subjected to overt sexual harassment, let alone "gray area" harassment.
Some are reluctant, which is regrettable and we should support them. Some are not reluctant. And some are eager, in hope of a payday. All of those exist.
> I don't think anyone has to fear any kind of slippery slope here.
When a person is discussing a world where even the nebulously defined gray area is legally actionable, and the only standard is "a woman felt uncomfortable" - yes.
It seems like you're replying viscerally to the idea that sexual harassment is not real, or should not be punished? I never suggested such a thing. I just think that if we're going to try and un-blur the gray area, then we need objectively defined standards.
Why should that even be a factor? Unwanted is unwanted, whether they're in a committed relationship or not is not relevant at all.
Parent post included that because these threads are full of arseholes who say things like "he didn't know, why didn't she just tell him?"
This is where professionalism and propriety come in. One's behavior should simply be well outside the gray area and straying into it should, itself, be grounds for confrontation.
That doesn't actually fix anything, you're just defining the gray area to be further to one side. If people actually did that then expectations would change and more innocuous behavior would fall into the gray area, requiring you to move the line again.
The gray area exists because not everybody agrees where the line is.
In some cultures it is illegal for a man and a woman who are not married to even be alone in a room together. In some cultures physical contact between acquaintances is normal behavior. In a multicultural society, whose culture should have the force of law?
This gray area exists because the law needs to operate under the presumption of innocence, defining crimes unambiguously and prosecuting them with due regard for reasonable doubt -- it is deliberately narrow and permissive, because the state is very powerful and if not held to strict limits it becomes very dangerous. However, those of us who wish to have a good social and professional reputation shouldn't expect to maintain it while doing things that are "barely legal"; and those who witness us doing so should not feel that those kinds of things are not to be mentioned or corrected merely because they are not illegal.
That is the theory everyone refers to when they're trying to justify imposing harsh penalties.
Have you read the laws that Congress actually passes? It would be nice if they actually lived up to that standard.
And you can't get out of the problem by appealing to a reputational shadow enforcement system. If reputational harm wasn't real or powerful then no one would be interested in imposing it. Imposing real penalties with a weak standard of proof on marginal behavior is equally problematic regardless of whether the penalties are formally imposed by the state. And today's attitudes become tomorrow's laws.
Gray areas are gray because they contain both baby and bathwater.
If something is clearly wrong it's easy to make it illegal (and it almost always already is), and if it isn't clearly wrong then we don't have any special knowledge the state lacks that allows us to mete out penalties in borderline cases without punishing good people.
There is a grey area like that but that is not the grey area I am talking about.
To a consider an example you mentioned previously: it's fine to just not ever touch your coworkers. Another example is ethnic jokes: these are not illegal but do you need to do this at work? Staying out of the gray area is not a matter of harsh punishment but rather on insisting on professionalism and decorum.
It is only when people have strayed so far from that -- normalising deviance for themselves -- that you find yourself in a place where harsh punishment is even thinkable. One would not need or apply harsh punishments for matters of decorum.
You're assuming the benefit of staying away from the line is greater than the cost of losing every net-positive thing that isn't entirely white.
It's possible for a workplace to be a sterile environment where one turns one's wrench in silence without human connection, but that isn't how people should have to spend the majority of their waking hours.
And again, that policy is a ratchet. What people take offense to is calibrated by expectations and past experience. If you succeed in exerting social pressure to keep everyone away from the line, you move the Overton window and create a new gray area in what used to be accepted professional behavior. Continue to apply the same line-avoiding policy and you have a ratchet that leads to the imposition of radically Puritanical positions.
For example, tipping -- I honestly can not remember the last time I saw anyone not do it. That doesn't mean tips keep going up and up and up...
How do you explain that?
> Nonetheless, the standard percentage to tip waitstaff has risen over the decades. According to a PayScale study, the median tip is now 19.5%. In recent years, some waiters and restaurants have suggested that 25% or even 30% is the proper gratuity level, and that a 20% tip, once considered generous, is just average today. As recently as 2008, though, an Esquire tipping guide stated "15 percent for good service is still the norm" at American restaurants. An American Demographics study from 2001 found that three-quarters of Americans tipped an average of 17% on restaurant bills, while 22% tipped a flat amount no matter what the bill, and the gratuity left averaged $4.67. Meanwhile, in 1922, Emily Post wrote, "You will not get good service unless you tip generously," and "the rule is ten per cent."
Presumably as a result of most people not wanting to leave a below average tip, which clips the low side of average from the distribution and thereby raises the average over time.
It's very common.
This story was posted yesterday and it got flagged. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14613890) When I saw that, I thought the Hacker News community did not care.
I am glad to see supportive comments like yours in this new thread.
Don't despair, I think we do care. :)
Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possible innocence?
I realize this isn't a legal matter at this point but I'm speaking of the principle(s) on which those features are based.
It almost always seems to become a case of "you're either with us or you're against us," so let's try to steer clear of that.
You're implying he supports sexual harassment.
He's bringing up a perfectly valid question for discussion: what if the person has an outsized opinion of his attractiveness, and also happens to be a VC -- is that still sexual harassment or just stupidity?
Well, the answer is that in this case it's still harassment.
And so now there's question, answer, discussion, etc. No need to accuse the poster of being complicit himself in harassment.
This type of behavior is about boundaries. Boundaries are about power.
His behavior crossed what our culture generally says are the boundaries of a professional situation. That's what makes it inappropriate; it doesn't matter what he believed.
It's totally acceptable to meet someone in a social situation and, after a bit of due diligence, it's totally acceptable to ask them out.
But that's not what this was.
I also reject the notion of "position of power" just because he is a VC. Nobody is forced to take his money. You could just as well say the applying women are in a position of power because the VC desperately needs somebody to invest in. I guess a startup should avoid seeking investments where the investor is "in a position of power", anyway.
I am also not justifying his behavior, obviously he made mistakes. But I reject the immediate interpretation of "man abusing his power to pressure women into sex".
The "boundaries" talk is also not really helpful - at some point, somebody has to make a move. If their estimate of the situation is correct, they are not "crossing boundaries". Otherwise they are crossing boundaries and need to withdraw.
Grabbing a knee under the table is of course not a good first move, but we might be missing context.
Nobody's forced to work for a boss that harasses them, yet making unwanted sexual advances against someone who reports to you is illegal as hell.
You have a poor legal understanding of sexual harassment. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to what kind of advances and relationships are, and are not appropriate in a professional setting.
* I hate to think that you might have trouble understanding this, but we're not talking about dating a co-worker. We're not talking about a pitch that didn't succeed followed by three months of radio silence followed by them meeting at a social event and realizing that they are attracted to each other.
* The mutual realization that you are attracted to a coworker is not the same as sexual harassment, it's not the same as being asked out by your manager, and it's not the same as receiving unwelcome sexual advances during a pitch meeting from a man who works at VC firm.
* Asking an available coworker out on a date, however unwise it may be depending on your place of employment and working relationships, is not the same as making remarks about her looks, clothes, or anatomy. It's not the same as denying her an investment or promotion because she rejected your advances.
I hope that clears things up for you.
>> But I reject the immediate interpretation of "man abusing his power to pressure women into sex".
Oh but that's exactly what this was. It was a man abusing his power to pressure women into sex.
>> Grabbing a knee under the table is of course not a good first move, but we might be missing context.
Grabbing the knee of someone you are not mutually involved with is not appropriate behavior in the workplace. Depending on the situation, it may be inappropriate even if you are mutually involved. But without mutual involvement, it's absolute inappropriate.
Occam's razor is a tool to winnow down proven scientific theories, not to bypass the need for evidence. I'd rather vest power in the courts than outrage media.
So for me this means that I wait for the judges to decide. Before he's found guilty it's nothing more than gossip to me, although this is a rather unpopular opinion I guess.
Since he at least didn't deny the accusations this fosters the believes in his guilt.
For this case it's fine then. However, I tried to make a more general statement in my post before, since the zeitgeist tends to prejudgements nowadays, which also was a thing in the middle ages and does more harm than good.
Seriously? I mean then why do we need courts, judges and juries if it's that simple. Details matter and both sides of the story. [1]
And what do you mean by 'at the very least doing something that's inappropriate'?. By what and by whose standards?
[1] What if you were charged with the crime of assault (non sexual in this example) and nobody had seen what had happened prior to you throwing (what they thought) was the first punch without any knowledge of the provocation prior to that point (as only one quick example).
"The past 24 hours have been the darkest of my life. I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. To say I'm sorry about my behavior is a categorical understatement. Still, I need to say it: I am so, so sorry.
I direct my apology first to those women who I've made feel uncomfortable in any way, at any time - but also to the greater tech ecosystem, a community that I have utterly failed.
The power dynamic that exists in venture capital is despicably unfair. The gap of influence between male venture capitalists and female entrepreneurs is frightening and I hate that my behavior played a role in perpetrating a gender-hostile environment. It is outrageous and unethical for any person to leverage a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, it is clear to me now that that is exactly what I've done.
I am deeply ashamed of my lack of self-awareness. I am grateful to Niniane, Susan, Leiti, and the other women who spoke up for providing me with a sobering look into my own character and behavior that I can no longer ignore. The dynamic of this industry makes it hard to speak up, but this is the type of action that leads to progress and change, starting with me.
I will be taking an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital, the firm I co-founded in 2014. I will be seeking professional counseling as I take steps to reflect on my behavior with and attitude towards women. I will find ways to learn from this difficult experience - and to help drive necessary changes in the broader venture community.
The Binary team will also be taking measures to ensure that the firm is a safe place for founders of all backgrounds to find the support and resources they need to change the world, without abuse of power or mistreatment of any person.
I owe a heartfelt apology to my family, my investors, my portfolio, and the team at Binary, who have been completely blindsided and in no way deserve the pain I've caused. But most of all I apologize again to those who I've hurt during the course of my career - and for the damage I've done to the industry I care so deeply about."
https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave...
Binary issued a statement that said the notion Mr. Caldbeck had “engaged in improper behavior with female entrepreneurs” was “false.” Binary said that while The Information had “found a few examples which show that Justin has in the past occasionally dated or flirted with women he met in a professional capacity, let’s be clear: there is no evidence that Justin did anything illegal and there is no evidence that any of his investing decisions were affected by his social interest.
> Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There’s no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Binary released an updated statement in light of this new apology and indefinite leave.
He hasn't copped up to the assaults, and since they were not employees, the texts may not necessarily have been illegal.
Not entirely contradictory.
> It is outrageous and unethical for any person to leverage a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, it is clear to me now that that is exactly what I've done.
Those read to me like admissions of guilt. I'd expect lawyers to strongly advise against writing such things.
I would have liked to see more respect given to the victims rather than telling us how difficult getting caught has been for him.
"I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week." - I'm probably a pathological predator but prefer to view my illness and/or poor character as a set of "mistakes" because that's easier on me than admitting I'm a piece of shit.
"To say I'm sorry about my behavior is a categorical understatement." - I would acknowledge who I probably really am but I can't, if I even know.
"Still, I need to say it: I am so, so sorry." - So I'll just say "I'm sorry" instead.
"I direct my apology first to those women who I've made feel uncomfortable in any way, at any time - but also to the greater tech ecosystem, a community that I have utterly failed." - I did some really repulsive shit, but I don't want to say how repulsive, so let's just call it "making people feel uncomfortable." Also, I'm really bummed that so many people are getting mad at me.
"The power dynamic that exists in venture capital is despicably unfair." - This isn't about me at all, guys. It's about The System. If I just start acknowledging and condemning structural violence, maybe I can get the focus of this off of me personally.
"The gap of influence between male venture capitalists and female entrepreneurs is frightening and I hate that my behavior played a role in perpetrating a gender-hostile environment." - So let's talk about structural violence instead and how I'm just a cog in The System.
"It is outrageous and unethical for any person to leverage a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, it is clear to me now that that is exactly what I've done." - We all sin, OK?
"I am deeply ashamed of my lack of self-awareness." - If I had known everyone would get so fucking upset at me, I wouldn't have done those things. I hate it when people get mad at me.
"I am grateful to Niniane, Susan, Leiti, and the other women who spoke up for providing me with a sobering look into my own character and behavior that I can no longer ignore." - I wish those women hadn't done that. I'm totally fucked now.
"The dynamic of this industry makes it hard to speak up, but this is the type of action that leads to progress and change, starting with me." - But enough about me, let's talk about The System instead. That's the real problem. In fact, me being a piece of shit and it being brought to light is good for these women. I did them a favor! Don't you see?
"I will be taking an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital, the firm I co-founded in 2014." - Like I said, I'm totally fucked now and my partners booted me out.
"I will be seeking professional counseling as I take steps to reflect on my behavior with and attitude towards women." - My wife is so fucking pissed, you don't even know. We're probably getting divorced now, so thanks for that.
"I will find ways to learn from this difficult experience - and to help drive necessary changes in the broader venture community." - I still don't really get what I did wrong, but since everyone is so mad at me, I guess I'd better try to figure out how to not make people mad at me again like that.
"The Binary team will also be taking measures to ensure that the firm is a safe place for founders of all backgrounds to find the support and resources they need to change the world, without abuse of power or mistreatment of any person." - My partners are super pissed that I fucked their brand, and accordingly, their deal flow. Please don't take it out on them. They're not cool with what I did even though they probably knew about it.
"I owe a heartfelt apology to my family, my investors, my portfolio, and the team at Binary, who have been completely blindsided and in no way deserve the pain I've caused." - I'm sorry I fucked everybody's shit up.
How would you word your apology such that it couldn't be interpreted in this (self-serving, not actually sorry) way?
Do you think that's true? Like women/men can't harras men sexually?
It seems to me that being sexual harassed by a person in a position of authority over you is unlikely to be that different based on sex but could differ a lot based on some of the characteristics that are often skewed to one sex or the other.
So men in general might feel greater humiliation, perhaps; women might feel more vulnerable: both because of the physical strength of men vs. women in general.
Consider Kafka. Any one incident in one of his stories could be fairly viewed as merely a confusing annoyance, but that would miss the point.
But even the structural nature of violence against women is insufficient context alone. The feelings women experience when they are victimized in this way are products of history. And I submit that you cannot share in that experience without that history, which is to say without having been born a woman.
I can no sooner "truly understand" how women experience these things than I can truly understand how it feels to be a black man called "boy." I understand it intellectually, and I empathize as much as I can, but I'll never "get it" as someone who isn't a member of the out-group.
This isn't a contest of suffering. I can suffer just as much as a woman, if not more, but not in the same way. It is the character of the suffering that makes us different.
What you need to demonstrate is that women are a special class who have entirely different experiences, to any member of other classes, when being sexually harassed.
This stands in stark contrast to some feminist rhetoric as it relies on men and women being fundamentally and innately unequal.
I don't think women are shrinking little flowers, as a class, that experience harassment in a way that no members of the out-class do. This, appears to be the supposition of your post.
How do you suppose you know enough of the experience of members of your own class (eg male) to say they are all markedly different to those of another class (female).
>The feelings women experience when they are victimized in this way are products of history. //
In the general case that sounds like bullshit. Convince me otherwise?
Also, I'm a Beauvoir feminist, so I'm sure we'd have our differences about gender equality.
Caldbeck might benefit by spending time volunteering for an appropriate organization as a way to help accelerate his awareness - and to help.
It's really sad to see this story emerge, and I hope we can all take lessons from it and nudge the industry in a better direction.
I've been working with startups since 2011 and in that time I've seen:
-A Head of HR who gave promotions to his employees based on sexual favors given. This person happened to be friends with the CEO and employees got in trouble for reporting him.
-A founder and dealing with the above situation and doing an "investigation" that ended with nothing.
-The same founder referring the employees who were fired to their friends dumpster fire of a company so they could get a referral bonus.
-A founder I worked with belittled women, all of their female developers left after a few months. I wrote a glassdoor review and was repeatedly threatened by said founder.
-Worked with a founder who has repeatedly been accused of sexual harassment to the point where there are multiple articles about it. Same founder hooked up with multiple younger female employees while on coke in another country on a company trip. During a round of layoffs, the women saved were the women sleeping with executives (there were 4!!!). Still CEO obv.
-Finally, at larger companies with multiple younger founders I've seen wayyyy too many situations where male boss puts female employee in awkward situations, whether its an arm around them in the hot tub or extreme extra attention over male employees.
Each time I thought about pointing out this behavior, there was some sort of threat/warning about shutting up and letting it happen, often followed by actual legal threats. Watch who you work with...
Big money leads to terrible behavior due to power differences. Men AND Women willing to take advantage of less powerful people. I have a female friend who was sexually harrassed by a female VC, and again the same dynamics played out. Its not about gender but primal human desires and power.
Sexual assault:
From the DoJ:
"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."
Source: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault
Sexual harassment:
From the EEOC, the which is the U.S. federal agency that is responsible for civil rights in the workplace:
"It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.
Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.
Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer."
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
(Edited to include sexual assault, which was included in the parent comment as one of the things apparently lacking a definition)
I lost my job and got involved in a complex legal matter trying to defend girls from a predatory person. Most people simply do not care, and will avoid getting involved at all costs.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-rights-women-entreprene...
The law should be handling sexual harassment. The reasons why we have these issues with companies is because there's a conflict of interest. The police are a third party and have no interest in the success/failure of the company, ideally.
I think people on both sides of this issue would love it if the law showed itself capable of handling sexual harassment cases. Unfortunately we have way too much evidence that that just isn't the case. The obvious example that comes to mind is Brock Turner getting three months, and that's in the best case where someone is actually convicted. Far too often it never gets to that point, not because the harassment/assault didn't occur, but because the legal system is so utterly shit at handling it. The 'outragism' that so many people decry only exists in the first place because every system that is supposed to prevent or punish these acts has failed so completely.
You're basically arguing that companies should become their own units of law enforcement with their own punishments as they see fit, with no oversight. That is clearly not going to work. It clearly hasn't.
If the law is unfair, we have the power to change that law. Exceptions always exist but we can not make laws on exceptions. Meanwhile companies continue to allow harassment on a daily basis, Look at Fox News. Multiple cases. Imagine in other corporations?
While we may theoretically have the power to change the way law enforcement works on these issues, doing so would be dramatically more difficult than making marginal improvements within the industry itself. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Industry has never gotten this right. How long until we finally see that the company trying to avoid bad PR and make money doesn't have conflicts of interest with these victims?
I've seen too many companies turn blind eyes to terrible workplace environments because the perpetrator "makes too many sales." or is "too important." It's always going to be a conflict of interest.
My advice to anyone is: collect evidence, quit, and file a lawsuit. Any other internal method will lead to even more abuse and fear.
You can call them over racist discrimination. There's no difference here.
EDIT: Ah, it seems going on record is necessary to actually bring charges to someone.
EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
edit: For reference the actual physical acts are battery in the legal sense.
They help move the needle from simply "He said; she said."
Some types of sexual assault can be proven by medical examination, if the exam happens soon after, although many actions that qualify as sexual assault will either not show up on an exam, or can be proven to be "sexual" but not "assault." However, in cases like this where there is an ongoing relationship before and after the incident, the text messages will often refer to physical events. These can be evidence that a physical event happened, and what the attitudes and beliefs of the involved people were towards the incident at the time. Although even that is still a large amount of he-said-she-said and drawing large inferences from circumstantial data.
Sexual harassment law only applies to the workplace.
An action need not be legally actionable to be newsworthy, or to be important for people who might want to know of their risk of being subjected to similar action.
He is accused of sexual assault and harassment. The particular harassment is, in principle, more readily demonstrable (though perhaps not legally actionable, “sexual harassment” short of assault isn't always illegal, though it may well be newsworthy, without an employment relationship.)
OTOH, in the case of a VC against people seeking funding, some forms of what would analogous to quid pro quo sexual harassment in employment could shade into the crime of soliciting prostitution.
In a legal case (which is not now pending from any information published, but that could change), any facts from which an observer could infer that the intent at issue was more likely than it would be in the absence of those facts are evidence (providing that they aren't inadmissible for other reasons.)
Legal proof isn't mathematical proof; in general, the ways you'd forms belief about something in your daily life are how it is “proved” in a court of law.
The degree of certainty a juror is expected to have for a conviction in a criminal cases is very high, but that's not a matter of how it is proved, but how conclusively it must be proved.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.
They have fucking text messages to back their story up. Are those easy to fabricate too, when it comes to rich and powerful people?
My comment was a bit too female-focused. It wasn't about she-said's or a female conspiracy, but rather the ease of getting people to smear someone that has enemies.
It's hard not to notice that the claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's. It's obviously quite different, but the damage is identical. And when it comes to something so powerful, we should at least respect due process.
It's not, and it's not.
Communist witch-hunts were conducted by secret, back-channel, anonymous snitches, and were all about guilt by association. Accusations of sexual harassment put the accuser incredibly out in the open.
They were also largely used as a weapon against the weak and unconnected - people without the resources, or even awareness necessary to fight back against secret blacklists.
Not to mention that there is a colossal distinction between blackballing people for being communists, and blackballing them for being sexual harassers.
And besides, if history's any indication, the latter don't have problem making a living. There's always someone willing to take a chance.
Communist witch-hunts were conducted by secret, back-channel, anonymous snitches, and were all about guilt by association. Accusations of sexual harassment put the accuser incredibly out in the open.
It was both. A lot of accusations were made in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, on public record, and those accusers were very visible. For example you can read through http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458/ and see that Emil Lustig, Robert Burman, Herbert K. Sorrell and a number of others had no doubt about who they were accused by - they were accused by Ronald Reagan and Walt Disney.
There was also accusation by rumor mill, which might or might not ever lead to a public accusation.
I've seen both modes with sexual harassment claims. Indeed it is not infrequent that, as with this case, the public claims only emerge after someone has been tarred and feathered by anonymous accusations in the rumor mill.
They were also largely used as a weapon against the weak and unconnected - people without the resources, or even awareness necessary to fight back against secret blacklists.
Most of the people caught up had little actual power. The same is true today by virtue of the simple fact that most of us have very little actual power. But there were very prominent people affected of accusations of being communists, such as Charlie Chaplin and Aaron Copeland. Which is again no different than today.
Furthermore the THREAT of being called a communist was used against very prominent people. That was the heart of Joseph McCarthy's power - powerful people were sincerely afraid of him.
Not to mention that there is a colossal distinction between blackballing people for being communists, and blackballing them for being sexual harassers.
There is a distinction, but I suspect that it goes the other way from what you think.
Communists stood accused of being covert agents of a hostile foreign power that we were at undeclared war with. Their purported aim was to undermine and destroy our country to ensure the victory of said foreign power. And there really were such covert agents. For example Harold Ware, Julius Rosenberg, and Aldrich Ames - all real people and all actually agents of the USSR who worked to undermine the security of the USA.
Sexual harassers stand accused of a personal crime whose legal status is not dissimilar to burglary or arson. They are clearly bad people but not an existential threat to our country.
Which accusation sounds worse?
And besides, if history's any indication, the latter don't have problem making a living. There's always someone willing to take a chance.
Can you provide stories of accused communists starving to death due to the blacklist?
They were more likely to commit suicide for lack of work. See: Philip Loeb and Bartley Crum, for two.
The analogy remains accurate.
Should you doubt the analogy, I strongly recommend reading http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-a... to see how the modern "sexual assault equivalent of the communist blacklist catches children in its net, and what the impact is. Do you think that this is rare? Read https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf for evidence that 1/4 of registered sex offenders were themselves juveniles at the time of the offense.
No, and if you see anyone hauling an actual, physical tree around to nail him to, you can tell them I said that.
But commenting based on one's perception of the facts based on the published allegations and responses is not, even remotely, analogous to crucifixion.
I'm genuinely curious, and the question is in good faith.
I think people should be conscious of the uncertainty in the facts when commenting based on limited information, but that he is entitled to no more deference from private actors than, essentially, avoiding libelous statements (those known to be false or made with with reckless disregard for truth.)
General private commentary is not, morally or ethically, dependent on an investigation.
And, in any case, an investigation has occurred, preceding publication of the story.
It's especially relevant given how all of this played out. (See the other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621765 and subsequent admission https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave...)
Any ideas for recognizing situations where a bit of skepticism is warranted vs situations like this? In this case, I'm a little saddened that my comments caused some more stress for the founders. One of them personally came to correct me upthread.
I think it's still important in general to reserve judgement and to wait for due process, but is there much reason to hold so fast to those views anymore? The speed at which accusations can be confirmed or denied seems to have increased to the point where it might not be so bad to just assume that the truth will usually come out. I don't know.
Skepticism is always warranted, this situation was no exception (even though the admission that has since emerged seems to implicitly confirm the reports.)
But skepticism doesn't mean don't form and express a view on the facts based on what information you do have, it means be aware that you don't have the whole picture and refrain from action that is too extreme for the information you have, and remain willing to revise your opinion as more information becomes available.
The last bit takes active effort to counter confirmation bias and the desire to avoid having to admit error.
> I think it's still important in general to reserve judgement and to wait for due process,
Even in government, “due process” isn't a binary thing; what process is due varies based on the action being taken and other elements of context. Even if we extend the concept to include private action, things like posting a comment expressing concern would have much less process due than any substantive government action.
Even a government agent acting in their official capacity doesn't have to wait for a conviction to say that they believe someone is guilty.
But @sillysaurus3 basically said that there is no amount of evidence that could satisfy "reasonable doubt" with this statement:
> When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier.
This statement basically says that gathering multiple claims and multiple accounts/allegations cannot be proof against a rich or powerful person because of some inherent propensity of women to come out of the woodwork to lodge harassment/assault claims against rich/powerful/famous people. So once you are rich and powerful you immediately win all he-said/she-said situations because people have to give you the "benefit of the doubt." (not that I agree with this statement)
It's not a controversial observation that rich and powerful people can acquire enemies, and some of them have been slandered by the press.
It was difficult to separate that situation from this one. I assure you, I'm a reasonable and thoughtful person and it's not fair to say that I basically said there's no amount of evidence that can satisfy a claim against a powerful person.
The original comment was "Maybe we should wait to see how this plays out before making any judgements." Nothing more.
This whole conversation was a request for more information, so if you're going to throw me under the bus for it, you'll just push those who want to ask harmless questions further into the camp of "I shouldn't say a word." And when people have beliefs that seem reasonable to them, this can be a harmful situation when those beliefs are false.
For example, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that a journalist shouldn't wield the power to destroy someone's reputation without any independent oversight. It's a simple proposition with simple, obvious consequences. But pointing out that no investigation is going to occur helped me realize that it's an absurd standard.
EDIT: Also, most of my comments received around 8 upvotes. They've been bouncing up and down, but the point is, clearly a lot of people felt similarly. So by voicing these concerns, it probably changed a lot more minds than my own. Talking this out and being open with it seems like a good thing.
> When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier.
when taken at face value is implying (indirectly) that it takes more "she-saids" to make a claim against a rich/powerful person believable than it would for a "normal" person.
It doesn't even have to have anything to do with women. It just implies that even multiple claims by separate parties might not be enough when the target is someone rich or powerful (or famous) if it's a "my word against yours" type situation. From my point of view, that's just giving more power to the rich or powerful.
Most of the men replying in this thread have an incorrect "prior" (in the statistical sense) of the odds that a woman will experience serious sexual harassment in the workplace. This prior emerges, one presumes, because we look at ourselves as the model for estimating that behavior, think "there's no way in hell I'd behave that way, so this must be really rare", and assign a relatively low probability to the occurrence.
That prior is incorrect. There are enough harassers out there, each of whom harms multiple people, that, in fact, the average experience is of having been inappropriately approached, harassed, or outright assaulted, to the point where [1] a woman has a lifetime 1 in 6 chance of being the victim of rape or attempted rape, and in one survey, 1 in 3 women reported having experienced workplace sexual harassment. [2] Those numbers may be wrong a bit in either direction, but the decimal point is probably in the right place.
When we hear a claim like "X was sexually harassed by Y", we evaluate the likelihood of that statement in light of our own experience and prior - and assign to it a much lower likelihood of it being true than the true probability. In other words, you mentally calculate: P(harassed | X says harassed). By bayes rule, that's equal to P(X says harassed | harassed) * P(harassed) / P(X says harassed). So when our mental model of P(harassed) is too low, our estimate of P(harassed | X says harassed) is too low. And thus arises excessive disbelief in claims that are more likely to be true.
So, my very geeky suggestion for this is: Be very precise about the question you're asking about and the assumptions that go into it. You can often find a way to validate those assumptions to check what you're asking about.
[1] https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/1-in-3-women-sexual...
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/upload/repor...
pdf page 15 (document internal page 8): "Based on testimony to the Select Task Force and various academic articles, we learned that anywhere from 25% to 85% of women report having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. ... We found that when employees were asked, in surveys using a randomly representative sample (called a “probability sample”), if they had experienced “sexual harassment,” without that term being defined in the survey, approximately one in four women (25%) reported experiencing “sexual harassment” in the workplace. This percentage was remarkably consistent across probability surveys. When employees were asked the same question in surveys using convenience samples (in lay terms, a convenience sample is not randomly representative because it uses respondents that are convenient to the researcher (e.g., student volunteers or respondents from one organization)), with sexual harassment not being defined, the rate rose to 50% of women reporting they had been sexually harassed."
The cited EEOC report has fairly extensive citations backing up its claims.
As I said - I have no specific numbers I believe are The One True Answer, but it's fairly clear from a variety of sources that the decimal points are in approximately the right place. For the purpose of what I was discussing, 25% and 85% are approximately the same ("Very much higher than one might guess if we use our own behavior as a model").
Do you apply this standard in other areas? If someone tells you they had chicken for lunch, do you say, "Hold on, let's wait for the investigation to determine what you actually had for lunch"? Or if six people told you they had chicken for lunch?
If this guy could say "I was never even alone in the same conference room with any of these women, let alone at a bar where any impropriety is a matter of their word against mine" I think this story wouldn't have run.
Seriously guys, when you're at work, just fucking work and all this bullshit magically goes away. No dating, no uncomfortable discussions of race or politics or sex, just do your job and go home. Talk about tabs versus spaces if you need to spice up a Friday afternoon lull.
I dispute this very much. For example, you have people like Chris Brown that can turn their girlfriend into a human punching bag... and nothing happens to them. They just say that they are sorry, and keep in making money hand over fist (and even get women on Twitter saying things like "he can punch me any day").
It is documented that he was beating the crap out her, and he has suffered no ill consequences, or lack of popularity. I'm pretty sure that this does not match up with being called a communist in 1950's America.
> No, I don't. But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens?
He has come out with a statement basically admitting to it after completely denying it.
I believe you are wrong about this. Text messages are easier to fabricate than other forms of digital evidence, and less risky than something like paying people to pretend to be witnesses.
I have nothing to gain from this. I am not suing. I'm founder & CEO of a Greylock-funded startup. Thankfully Greylock has come out in full support, but I didn't know that beforehand and was very nervous when I decided to do the article. The only way that any reporter would agree to publish was if I used my real name. I knew Justin was continuing to harass women, and this was the only way to stop him.
sillysaurus3, you may be thinking of cases where women go to accuse a "rich or powerful" person and are trying to get something out of it. I had nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
"The unfortunate truth is that I simply could not write this until Albergotti published, as I didn't have anyone on the record, which is virtually essential from a journalistic perspective. "
https://www.projectcallisto.org/
Victims report incidents, an their info is not shared at the time of report. Victims can elect to have their reports unsealed if subsequent accusations are made against the same individual. This mirrors the current status quo, where it's less common for victims to speak out if there are no other cases to corroborate, but makes discovery of other cases more feasible.
It's being rolled out specifically in the context of college sexual assault, but I imagine the approach could work elsewhere too.
I can only imagine how stressful a situation like this can be, so I certainly didn't mean to increase it. Best of luck.
This is about calling out shitty but legal behavior. The VC didn't even deny he was lecherous, just that he didn't do anything illegal. That's tacit confirmation that it did happen.
https://www.axios.com/pro-rata-2446752020.html
One journalist got six sources, three on the record, and claims to have verified parts of the stories (such as reviewing message history on phones), which led him to have the confidence to go to press.
It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.
I know it must have been a hard decision to make because you were probably worried about how you & your company would be treated afterwards but this is going to help open so many people's eyes.
Not only does naming sources give more credibility, it also doesn't rely fully on the credibility of journalists. You can only say "it's true, just trust me" without being able to back it up so many times.
Testimony of anonymous sources are useful as corroboration, not as the main evidence. The sources here don't need to fear for their lives, nor are they able to produce documents to back up their claims.
I do not wish to diminish the courage that was needed to go on the record here. In fact, this is even more risky because hard evidence is so hard to come by in cases like this.
So it happened, it's just that he doesn't realize how wildly unacceptable it was.
This is an interesting comment and sheds some light on what is happening here.
There is no need to be publicly named in a news article to bring charges in a court of law; but in a court of law there is a clear and regular process for evaluating charges; and one does actually submit to the possibility of retaliation in a limited form: false accusations carry punishments of their own.
Justin has already quit. In some sense, charges were brought in the court of public opinion -- and for these to have any weight, there must be some element of credibility attached to them. Journalists are not cops and just quoting "unnamed sources" is not enough to substantiate the idea that someone should lose their job, in part because unnamed sources accept no scrutiny and no risk. Attaching one's name to something like this is the only way to lend any weight to it, in the absence of any judicial process.
It also has a long-term chilling effect on women in technology and entrepreneurship.
I am surprised by the lack of outrage over this behavior.
Not that it will matter in the end. Recent events have shown that you can flat out admit to drugging women in order to have sex with them and still be acquitted if you have adequate stature and fame. (Ok, I should be more fair. A mistrial is not an acquittal.)
And as pointed out below, accusations are evidence in the court of public opinion.
- While at lightspeed, accusations from a female founder at a portfolio company was serious enough that the "situation rose to the broader board level, with the ultimate resolution resulting in non-disclosure agreements on all sides."
- While at Bain Ventures, a female founder accused Justin of inviting him over to his hotel room to "finish the conversation" even knowing she had a BF (not that being single would make it at all appropriate).
- Two other female founders with similar stories that don't want to go on the record
I also think it's worthy to note that all his (public) accusers are asian, as is his wife.
Occam's razer...
Caldbeck has apologized, taken leave, and did not contest any of the claims.
How about we wait for due process first before we start tearing into it? There's a reason why "innocent until proven guilty" is an important part of our society and comments like these undermine that.
Due process is for any government action affecting life, liberty, or property, including civil proceedings.
But still not relevant to private reactions, though certainly one could argue that some of the principles which motivate due process protections have moral relevance in a private context as well.
Edit: here is his statement
Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There’s no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it.
Judge for yourself. Innocent, non-harassers, don't apologize when accused of such vile things (especially married, "family" men with kids - a daughter nonetheless).
Why the need to judge? Whether he's guilty or innocent, it's a tragic story for all involved, and it's not our job to make that decision: this is why we have a legal system on which our society is founded.
Now, if I had a direct relationship with Mr. Caldbeck I would certainly make my own estimations and act accordingly, but I don't understand why everyone feels this need to act as judge and jury of everything that happens. That tendency isn't one of the better aspects of our nature.
No, we do not. Our society is not founded on the legal system; the legal system is one feature of our society, intended to deal with the most serious failures of normal operations.
Or are you also interested in determining sentencing and throwing the switch?
You had me up until this point. There are plenty of married-with-children men and women in consenting open/poly/swinger/etc relationships; we don't know enough to judge their marriage.
This doesn't make sexual harassment ok, but maybe sharpen your pitchforks with a little less glee?
You are free to judge for yourself, but from the Information and Axios article, there does seem to be a preponderance of evidence to suggest Justin is either a serial sexual harasser/predator, at worst, or a totally inappropriate jerk-douchebag, at the very least. Both deserve condemnation. Bad actors need to be rooted out and ostracized, especially bad actor VCs.
That is correct in cases where harassment has occurred, yes.
In cases of false accusation, though, the accuser has nearly all of the advantages. And it's not as if it never happens, either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estim...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexu...
Which is why due process is important both legally, and culturally. While I understand how people directly impacted by the event (and their loved ones) have neither the inclination nor the capacity to withhold judgement, mob-like indignation on the part of the public about every story which is reported is a dynamic that hasn't served us well thus far, and the situation isn't showing any signs of improving.
Else we're little better than places that hold mock trials and summary executions.
Serious accusations need to be tried in a manner that involves evidence, sworn testimony, counsel, etc., precisely because of their seriousness.
In the meantime, online conjecture by parties with no standing should probably presume innocence until guilt is found, because a mob mentality should be beneath us.
I know someone who was falsely accused of something serious–decades in prison type stuff–and the news coverage alone destroyed his business and put his family through hell.
Anyone who's opposed to capital punishment because it prevents the accused from ever finding justice should also be concerned about the effects the court of public opinion can have on someone's life, and err on the side of withholding judgement when, again, there's no reason for us to judge this person unless we have direct dealings with the individual and need to make our own estimations out of self-interest.
What's happening in this thread isn't about self-interest, it's about self-satisfaction. That's neither useful nor wise.
You're making a reasonable, but I would argue, pedantic argument (as it applies to this situation). Caldbeck is not being tried in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. The standards are looser, that's just a part of living in a community with others, there is a natural bit of self-policing. It's part of our instinctual nature as humans; we pattern-match, it can get us in trouble at times, but it's gotten us this far as a species.
If he is innocent he is free to defend himself and provide counter-evidence. He is being rightfully pilloried given the many claims, over a long period of time, against him. The abundance of evidence, must be considered.
Look at the Bill Cosby case. Legally, innocent, but would you leave your daughter, wife, mother alone with someone with this kind of reputation?
Waiting for the facts/verdict though, and not forming an internet mob based on whatever one person or another said, SHOULD apply anywhere.
Well, how about the law?
>We can't just let everything slide because we're perpetually waiting for more evidence.
But it's not 'sliding', it's going to court.
And it doesn't concern us anyway -- it's not like we witnessed it in real life and didn't speak out.
Stopping sexual assault should concern everyone!
Well, some downvotes should come your way for misattribution too then.
I didn't say that "Stopping sexual assault should not concern us" (or anything to that effect).
I said the case is of no concern to us. First, it's not our place to make judgements of guilt or innocence without knowing what transpired and not even knowing those people. Ee don't even know for sure whether it was actually sexual assault or not -- that's for the law to decide.
(Of course we might be suspicious of the law, or a specific court result, or the way a trial was conducted etc. But we are not even at that stage yet).
Plus, you're not stopping sexual assault by saying you are against it in an internet forum (and concerning an undecided case). Heck, even rapists would say they are "against sexual assault" in public.
Rich people use their position to attract girls all the time, it doesn't change if they are VC or not. You can always tell them that you're not interested or to get the fuck off if they insist. Besides their riches are part of who they are (it's not like they just won the lottery) -- a struggling artist or fair-trade hippie activist will also use his being as such to attract girls who are into that sort of thing.
I don't find "explicit texts" of concern either. What is this, victorian morality police? Some texts are bad because they are naughty? "I want to have sex with you" might even be more open and honest than "Let's have some coffee" (when the main reason is ending up in bed).
Threatening texts or actual sexual assault on the other hand, well, yeah, that's of concern.
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/23/15865422/justin-caldbeck-le...
Journalists that could speak with people at length and confirm the story by further research still weren't willing to publish based on anonymous sources. This is in part because anonymous accusations can be a great tool in a defamation campaign.
Furthermore, publishing anonymous claims without due-diligence discredits future anonymous claims. It might even back arguments like "Those sexual harassment claims always turn out to be smear campaigns".
It is useful data that, unfortunately, too few of us are aware of, and are thus condemned to the same fate.
I am fundraising, and wish I knew which sleazy firms/investors to not waste my time with.
Some VCs are sleazy, but their money's still green. I know with certainty of at least two firms with predatory/creepy partners, but that wouldn't stop me from including them in a round.
This behaviour is inappropriate, but it's not nearly as bad as what we learn to fend off at the average final club/frat party.
I hope you'd consider naming those firms/partners, for the benefit of others.
VCs do not invest their own money. Instead they invest money of their limited partners.
If limited partners learn that their investments are used to fund VC's love life - they would be furious and likely to withdraw their money.
Throughout my work on both sides of the table, I’ve been lucky to have met many very helpful and respected mentors/peers, however, this “risk of networking for female” has never been strange. It started with this: I reached out to someone for advice/business, meetings went great and constructive, a couple of emails and coffee, before I got excited about having a great connection, they may ask for a drink. At first, I was confused but agreed, wondering if this is the “valley/American culture” that I should get used to, then things unexpectedly turned awkward even if I tried to keep the conversations professional. Eventually, I don’t know how to maintain this connection.
Now that I’ve learned to “keep things professional”, but compared to my male friends’ networking experience, I still haven’t figured out the best boundary to set. Does “being professional” mean that I can’t have personal talks with male professionals? If a guy can be both professional connection and personal friend with another guy, why can’t I? I thought that only Asian people mix business and personal connections (given how popular wechat has been used as a “virtual business card” in China), turns out that in US, it’s not that different: you see male investors get drinks to catch up or meet new friends, afterwards they become good business partners.
I believe this is not the first time a female talk about this. Many people’s reaction may be: oh she must have given some hint that caused misunderstanding, or, when a guy does that, just stay away from him.
Hey, what if an attractive lady got into this uncomfortable situation from 1/3 of her networking?
I’m not here to complain. I’m sincerely hoping to hear some advice on how to best handle this networking difficulty, because as far as I know, I’m not alone.
So it drives me crazy to hear people getting away with it. It makes the world look majority bad - instead of minority bad.
The valley is really small, and I've heard horrific stories of what this firm has done to their employees and founders. This includes Jonathon Teo as well.
This really is just the tip of the iceberg for Binary Capital. I wouldn't take any investments from them ever.
Isn't that what you just did with Jonathon Teo though?
Do you expect this is voluntary scape-goating as a distraction for worse things? If so, what are these worse things. To me, the statement read as sincere.
The company was at a low point and Binary was trying to squeeze them. Now the company is flying, and Binary missed out. The entire experience made me feel compelled to caution to every entrepreneur who has approached me about working with them since, including another who did, and now regrets it for other reasons.
> I’ve never met Justin but can attest that his questionable behavior extends past allegations of sexual harassment.
> In early 2016, I spoke with Jonathan Teo, Justin’s partner at Binary, about funding Hitlist, my company. In the course of due diligence, I sent bios of the key engineers on my team. Justin approached my star iOS engineer and attempted to poach him to join one of Binary’s portfolio companies.
> There’s something rotten about a firm that holds out the promise of funding while secretly trying to poach your employees. (aside: I’m not sure if Jonathan had anything to do with this and have had nothing but pleasant, professional interactions with him).
[1] (behind paywall) https://www.theinformation.com/silicon-valley-women-tell-of-...
> We are now in a post-Susan Fowler world,
I think I know what the author was trying to say, but that's a really weird way to say it. Susan is most definitely still alive and well. Susan wasn't an event, like 9/11. she is a woman with a lot of courage who wrote about a series of terrible things that happened to her.
Personally I don't really see the problem. If you want to argue for a different state of things after some event, "post" seem like the correct word. Just like you would say "post war period". You might of course think that the statement itself is pretentious. But at least they argue their case, i.e the importance of her actions, in the article.
anyway, I just saw on the news that the serial-assaulter resigned, or has decided to take a travis (a leave of absence followed by a resignation), so that's a good thing.
different cultures have different standards for appropriateness and harrasement: you are trying to not be offensive and so used the world "girl", and someone else is offended because you didn't use the word "woman."
To be clear, I'm not talking about the harassment case here, I'm talking about the "call them women" comment.
Also, even if relativly rare, we do not want to needlessly ignore male victims.
We need to work on coming up with ways to create a world in which power is less likely to lead to this type of abuse. I think that starts with generally having healthier attitudes surrounding sexuality.
If you flip the genders, then on average, abuse of power will cause outright conflict sooner rather than after it has built up to completely unacceptable levels.
A cousin of mine commented on being a Navy recruiter and calling his wife to come sit at the office because of teenaged girls showing up at the recruiting office and trying to hang on him. He was very worried about how this would be perceived and he did not know how to turn them away. He was over 6 feet tall and scared of what these "little girls" would do to his career. The only effective solution he could find was to call his wife and have her in the office when they showed up.
I really think it is far more complicated than most people want to believe. Seeing the world in black-and-white, simple terms is just easier to cope with. But it usually is not an accurate assessment of reality.
So do I, and thanks for bringing some balance to the discussion. I noticed Mr. Calbeck's apology makes it sound like the situation is simple and not complicated.
Men do tend to hide it when they are the victims. There is substantial evidence that male victims of sexual assault have an even harder time coping in the aftermath than women, in part because it is seen as emasculating and they face bigger challenges than women in getting some kind of meaningful support if they try to tell anyone.
Well, it's the latter to a huge degree. Which means that by framing it as a "people's problem" in general (without the qualification) it is misrepresented.
In fact some definitions of attention define it as the ability to ignore unwanted or unneeded things. In general, I do think it is correct to focus on a specific, salient example of harassment, that is, women's harassment than the abstract. Just as I think it's better to focus on sexism or racism rather than "discrimination"
Men have a more difficult time obtaining social, emotional and physical intimacy with other people (in both romantic and platonic contexts). For the purely romantic context, there is a huge disparity in the required effort to obtain intimacy in a romantic relationship.
Women can obtain intimacy and have a very successful romantic life without making any advances at all. A man will have a very unsuccessful romantic life if he never makes any advances.
Society fails men on the social/physical/emotional intimacy front.
These are natural, primal needs have huge consequences on happiness. This lack of intimacy naturally causes men to seek intimacy in sometimes inappropriate contexts and situations.
Since a large cause of the behavior is the failing of society, it may be prudent to give higher leniency to men for these situations. The intimacy gap should at least be acknowledged whenever identity politics are brought up in these situations.
#NotAllMen But seriously. I'd like to talk more about this in a different setting. This sentiment rang true for me before I got out of high school. After that, it mattered much less.
> Society fails men on the social/physical/emotional intimacy front.
We failed ourselves. This article rang all too true. https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/megasahd-the-lac...
It's similar to police and citizens. Police who commit crimes are wielding a different power than individuals who commit crimes. It doesn't discount the crime, but it is a different problem.
> Speaking of one group is not ignoring the other. Nobody said that sexual harassment against men is okay. It's okay to recognize that social norms affect the genders asymmetrically and structure language around that.
If I knew you, I would just as soon support you in outing the guy who made lewd suggestions to you as I would support any woman I know in the same situation. But at the moment it does disproportionately affect women.
It's like how sickle cell anemia can affect anyone, but particularly affects African Americans. Obviously it's important to look at the problem at the general level. But no prudent biologist would ignore looking at the disease in the context of African Americans specifically, out of a misguided notion of race blindness.
That's not to say harassment and abuse aren't dealbreakers for the men I've worked with; for most of them, it is. But it has to be spelled out for them. A victim has to speak up about it. It has not been my experience that men surveil each other to ensure that their sexual behavior is appropriate or benign.
I had a similar response to the controversy over the Trump Access Hollywood tapes. Jake Tapper was talking to a Trump surrogate who claimed that the tapes were just "locker room talk". Tapper, aghast, said something to the effect of "not in any locker room I've ever been in". My response (to myself, quietly): Jake Tapper, you are full of shit.
Obviously none of this is good stuff! It's just important that we try to be more self-aware about it.
I knew that the person was extremely brash and was told that they indulged in "locker-room talk", though I didn't personally observe any harassing behavior. I didn't speak up about what I heard. I wish I had. I wonder, and worry, if anything as bad as what happened at their next company happened at the company I worked at. I'm really uncomfortable with the odds that it did.
And it's labelled "aggressive" because of several centuries of hardcore religious puritanism leaving their mark on all aspects of US culture. Sex is naughty. Sex talk is aggressive.
The parent said "There's some value in being able to talk bluntly with other men. And I'm not sure it's much worse than what I observed groups of women talking about".
And this was immediately taken to mean "aggressive sexual comment".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201505/...
About 20% for men and 50% for women.
Your comment could also be interpreted as most male founders do sexually harass others. I'm not sure that's what you meant.
The reality is that a small percentage of people constitute the majority of bad behavior. Be it harassment, or criminal activity in general. The counter-part is that the majority of people don't really cause trouble....
so saying "men harass" would be wrong. Saying "the bulk of harassers are men" is more correct.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
Diversity is a joke to be honest.
Go to any company, any single company, especially the ones that tout "diversity" it's all the same individual with the same "thought processes" with no actual diversity.
Many hire people who think the same exact way re-skinned or same-gendered.
One company that is about a block away that touts diversity is all liberal ideologues that spout the most racist and deflating things about everything. It's a very toxic environment for anyone who doesn't align with their ideology or beliefs. All of the individuals in the group have the same style. Can never tell them apart. All the same race. Yet on their twitter, jobs, facebook and even here they tout "Diversity! Friendly Co-Workers!"
I've seen more diversity in companies that don't care about diversity or tout diversity.
Sexual harassment and harassment happens more often at these companies, people who are being harassed and bullied about different things don't speak up. Most of the time it isn't women.
I've been bullied by women before because a candidate wasn't female. I've been bullied by men before because a candidate was female or looked weak (physically). I've heard people bully for stutters, skin color, age, race, gender, everything.
I don't care about that. I care about two things: Do you lift others up despite differences while resolving conflicts, and can you get the job done? Following these two, I've gutted these toxic behaviors (bullying, antagonistic, sexual harassment) from multiple companies and it's refreshing.
It's completely out of control to be honest, it's becoming very toxic and demeaning toward specific races and genders (not just men).
Sexual harassment is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of behaviors that need correcting. Especially in men.
I wonder what kind of significant context was missing? They asked for it?
/sarcasm
"I think they're full of shit, but I apologize anyway"
This is his statement in full:
Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There’s no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it.
How do you get "I think they're full of shit" out of that? This reads to me like a tacit admission that if anything else, his behavior is inappropriate and sketchy by any conventional sense. Appropriate and professional behavior does not need "significant context" to back it up.
"I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. To say I'm sorry about my behavior is a categorical understatement. Still, I need to say it: I am so, so sorry." ... "I will be seeking professional counseling as I take steps to reflect on my behavior with and attitude towards women."
That's about as far as a person can go without making an admissible confession, and seems to clear up basically all doubt.
Also, if you really think about it making something that makes someone uncomfortable illegal is weird. So by the same logic I should be able to sue my employer if he farts too much or is annoying in general?
It's true that there are a lot of things that a creep VC could say to a female founder that would be creepy, that would be harassment, that should probably get him fired, but wouldn't be criminal.
But if he makes a creepy statement while physically blocking the woman from exiting the room, or approaches her in a gropey manner but doesn't make contact, that's still assault. Probably not something he would get convicted for unless it was caught on video, but nevertheless...
"Give me all your money right now or I'll stab you with this knife!
What? What? I'm just speaking my mind, officer! Just because this guy feels offended? Hey, I thought this was America! First amendment!"
Similarly, you can't run toward someone screaming, pull back like you're going to throw a punch, then claim innocence when charged with assault. There are numerous court cases that draw various lines. Courts have recognized people sometimes say "I'll kill you" but without any actual intent. They also recognize sometimes threats are veiled and spoken in coded language to give the superficial appearance of acceptability... but the threats are just as real as pulling back in a punching motion.
Much sexual harassment falls into the latter category. Rarely to abusers (male or female) come right out and say "sleep with me or you're fired / I'll tank your funding round / I'll call your loan", though that does happen. By far the most common case is subtle suggestions or inferences that things will be easier for you if you go along with it.
In general it is best to avoid anything that appears romantic whenever there is a power imbalance. As a VC, you shouldn't be hitting on founders. If you think there is mutual attraction there then send that person to a friend at a different VC or wait for the funding rounds to close and assign the company to a different partner. Even then it is risky - the target of your affection may feel like they need to play along or you'll start bad-mouthing them and it will crush their business. When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested.
Even better advice is: don't. There is a wide pool of potential partners. Why are you so desperate to find a pickup among your founders / subordinates? Hint: usually because you're taking advantage of them! In this case the most likely explanation is the guy wanted to have some affairs and thought hooking up with founders would be an easy score. What those women thought or felt was entirely beneath his notice.
That's the iconic example, but from what I've heard (IANAL) lawyers and judges mostly don't consider it an especially compelling rhetorical argument, let alone representative of an actual legal standard.
As you're talking about legal things I feel a degree more pedantry is needed. You can yell "fire!" but not without an expectation of subsequent deleterious consequences. You have the freedom to speak, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech.
>When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested. //
I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete.
>most likely explanation //
I imagine the most likely explanation was that he was attracted to them, they mirrored his attraction and it went on from there without any thought from him that they were doing it in order to win/not_lose business positioning.
If you hit on someone, and they respond "I have a boyfriend" full stop, then unless they're taking their clothes off as they say it, there is zero chance that they mean anything but "I am not interested in your advances."
And, frankly, there's no reason to tell yourself otherwise unless you're planning on sexually harassing that person.
Free speech does not extend to groping. It's quite likely that many acts of mere harassment (supposing they don't, e.g., explicitly or implicitly condition exchange of money for sex,where then it gets into soliciting prostitution) is legal in a VC-to-founder rather than employer-employee situation.
OTOH, even the acts that may be legal are still newsworthy; not every act of public concern violates a law.
Do you think that groping women, lurid texts late at night, and harassing them with unwanted sexual propositions is objectionable behavior? If so, why are you trying to downplay it to just "annoying behavior?"
BTW no lawsuits have been filed (yet) so "illegal" doesn't enter into it.
- xkcd