12 ms·

The sad part to me is that this is just the part of the iceberg that is visible above the surface. I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not na

The sad part to me is that this is just the part of the iceberg that is visible above the surface. 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.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
> repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single.
- biocomputation 9y ago
  I am the very close relative of two women in tech. One of my relatives was on the receiving end of repeated, unwanted advances over the last several months, none of which were reported to HR because she didn't want to destroy her career at the company. 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.
  - braveo 9y ago
    I mean, there's a line. If he hadn't crossed it yet, then he hadn't done anything that needed or deserved to be fired for. That's why the line is there. I have to wonder if the woman in question made it clear she didn't appreciate the attention? It could've just been an idiot who took her silence as implicit approval, playing coy, etc, causing him to escalate to naked pictures. And I'm not saying it's her fault, but communication goes both ways. And like I said, he may have just been an idiot.
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      So you're saying idiots can't sexually harass people. Is that your excuse?
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        I think he's trying to distinguish between someone with poor ability to pick up on social cues (from someone with poor ability to communicate their wishes/feelings) and a sexual predator. That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
        DonHopkins 9y ago
        This is not the first time I've heard somebody try to fly the lame excuse that they're not guilty of doing something they actually did, because they were too stupid to know it was illegal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emerging-trump-defense-a-naif-in-the-oval-office/2017/06/08/51abdd9c-4c71-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...
        FeepingCreature 9y ago
        > the lame excuse that they're not guilty That's not what they said at all. > > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character. Stop rounding people to stereotypes.
- noobermin 9y ago
  I think they are using a euphemism for essentially saying "no" to sex/relations.
  - munchbunny 9y ago
    Yup, this one. It's a common tactic to bring up the significant other when it seems like the conversation might be going in a non-platonic direction and you want to head it off. It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection.
    - chongli 9y ago
      It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection. 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.
- taneq 9y ago
  I think this is a pretty important point. The default option for declining a proposition shouldn't have to be "I already have a partner". A simple 'no, thankyou' should suffice.
- munchbunny 9y ago
  > Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single. 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.
Alex3917 9y ago
> that's still sexual harassment by the letter of the law and slimy as hell every other way. 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.)
- xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
  What? Anyone can be sexually harassed by anyone else, workplace has nothing to do with it. Sexual harassment in the workplace is egregious because the conflict of interests. E.g. my boss harasses me, but if I complain I jeopardize my livelihood.
  - dfabulich 9y ago
    Alex3917 is right that sexual harassment outside the workplace is not illegal, but it's incorrect to say it's not "legally sexual harassment." It is sexual harassment, it's just not illegal sexual harassment. For example, catcalling on the street isn't illegal. It's still sexual harassment, it's still unethical, but it's not illegal.
    - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
      That's fair. In many developed countries sexual harassment laws extend to any situation where there is a power imbalance such as in education or in housing (landlord vs. tenant).
    - felipemnoa 9y ago
      >>For example, catcalling on the street isn't illegal Apparently in some instances and places it is. Follow the link. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/29/catcalling-women-on-the-street-isnt-just-offensive-its-also-often-illegal/?utm_term=.f3bbbeab2246 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/29/catca...
braveo 9y ago
> 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. 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fishtoaster 9y ago
  I think the key word is "repeated." Approaching someone is allowed. Repeatedly approaching them after they tell you know is not.
  - braveo 9y ago
    that's still not sexual harassment, there are plenty of stories of men chasing women and eventually marrying them. human sexuality isn't that cut and dried.
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      Not taking no for an answer is sexual harassment, if it makes the person on the receiving end uncomfortable.
      - mangofoobar 9y ago
        The article does not mention any of the women were direct with him and said "No". Infact, I would bet that they did not say "no". Because if they did... they would have used that to support their case. Smart that these women didn't actually level legal charges on him. Therefore they can tarnish is reputation and not experience an investigation to see who is telling the truth and therefore risk their careers. They even pointed out that it's so common place that they didn't think it was worthy of a police investigation. Why don't they "come out" about the hundred men that cat-called them this week alone? Oh right, because they wouldn't get fame or have the joy of taking down a powerful man.
justonepost 9y ago
Sadly though this probably means that you can't date anyone who you are working with in some capacity.
- eropple 9y ago
  Why not? Inquire politely, once, and if you're declined, don't be a jerk about it. It's not that hard.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Having first hand experience with this scenario several times, spot on.
knodi123 9y ago
> 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. 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.
- adamlett 9y ago
  How is it a slippery slope? Towards what? Will women eventually begin to feel uncomfortable about situations that are clearly not sexual? 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.
  - knodi123 9y ago
    > How is it a slippery slope? 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.
jacquesm 9y ago
> 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. Why should that even be a factor? Unwanted is unwanted, whether they're in a committed relationship or not is not relevant at all.
- DanBC 9y ago
  "I have a partner" is just one way to tell someone their attention is unwanted. 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?"
solidsnack9000 9y ago
> 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? 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.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > 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?
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    I don't mean that we should change the laws, so that the former grey area becomes the new illegal area; but rather that we should have a stricter attitude about the grey area. Sometimes people's attitude about these things is that, they acknowledge they are wrong, but since nothing illegal happened, they won't say or do anything. That's the grey area I'm talking about -- where there is broad acknowledgement that something is fishy, although it is not technically illegal. 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.
graphememes 9y ago
I've heard about both Men and Women VCs & CEOs making sexual advances using their position of power to those lower on the totem. It's very common.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

> repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single.

biocomputation 9y ago
I am the very close relative of two women in tech. One of my relatives was on the receiving end of repeated, unwanted advances over the last several months, none of which were reported to HR because she didn't want to destroy her career at the company. 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.
- braveo 9y ago
  I mean, there's a line. If he hadn't crossed it yet, then he hadn't done anything that needed or deserved to be fired for. That's why the line is there. I have to wonder if the woman in question made it clear she didn't appreciate the attention? It could've just been an idiot who took her silence as implicit approval, playing coy, etc, causing him to escalate to naked pictures. And I'm not saying it's her fault, but communication goes both ways. And like I said, he may have just been an idiot.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    So you're saying idiots can't sexually harass people. Is that your excuse?
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      I think he's trying to distinguish between someone with poor ability to pick up on social cues (from someone with poor ability to communicate their wishes/feelings) and a sexual predator. That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
      - DonHopkins 9y ago
        This is not the first time I've heard somebody try to fly the lame excuse that they're not guilty of doing something they actually did, because they were too stupid to know it was illegal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emerging-trump-defense-a-naif-in-the-oval-office/2017/06/08/51abdd9c-4c71-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...
        FeepingCreature 9y ago
        > the lame excuse that they're not guilty That's not what they said at all. > > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character. Stop rounding people to stereotypes.
noobermin 9y ago
I think they are using a euphemism for essentially saying "no" to sex/relations.
- munchbunny 9y ago
  Yup, this one. It's a common tactic to bring up the significant other when it seems like the conversation might be going in a non-platonic direction and you want to head it off. It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection.
  - chongli 9y ago
    It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection. 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.
taneq 9y ago
I think this is a pretty important point. The default option for declining a proposition shouldn't have to be "I already have a partner". A simple 'no, thankyou' should suffice.
munchbunny 9y ago
> Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single. 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.

Alex3917 9y ago

> that's still sexual harassment by the letter of the law and slimy as hell every other way. 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.)

xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
What? Anyone can be sexually harassed by anyone else, workplace has nothing to do with it. Sexual harassment in the workplace is egregious because the conflict of interests. E.g. my boss harasses me, but if I complain I jeopardize my livelihood.
- dfabulich 9y ago
  Alex3917 is right that sexual harassment outside the workplace is not illegal, but it's incorrect to say it's not "legally sexual harassment." It is sexual harassment, it's just not illegal sexual harassment. For example, catcalling on the street isn't illegal. It's still sexual harassment, it's still unethical, but it's not illegal.
  - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
    That's fair. In many developed countries sexual harassment laws extend to any situation where there is a power imbalance such as in education or in housing (landlord vs. tenant).
  - felipemnoa 9y ago
    >>For example, catcalling on the street isn't illegal Apparently in some instances and places it is. Follow the link. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/29/catcalling-women-on-the-street-isnt-just-offensive-its-also-often-illegal/?utm_term=.f3bbbeab2246 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/29/catca...

braveo 9y ago

> 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. 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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fishtoaster 9y ago
I think the key word is "repeated." Approaching someone is allowed. Repeatedly approaching them after they tell you know is not.
- braveo 9y ago
  that's still not sexual harassment, there are plenty of stories of men chasing women and eventually marrying them. human sexuality isn't that cut and dried.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    Not taking no for an answer is sexual harassment, if it makes the person on the receiving end uncomfortable.
    - mangofoobar 9y ago
      The article does not mention any of the women were direct with him and said "No". Infact, I would bet that they did not say "no". Because if they did... they would have used that to support their case. Smart that these women didn't actually level legal charges on him. Therefore they can tarnish is reputation and not experience an investigation to see who is telling the truth and therefore risk their careers. They even pointed out that it's so common place that they didn't think it was worthy of a police investigation. Why don't they "come out" about the hundred men that cat-called them this week alone? Oh right, because they wouldn't get fame or have the joy of taking down a powerful man.

justonepost 9y ago

Sadly though this probably means that you can't date anyone who you are working with in some capacity.

eropple 9y ago
Why not? Inquire politely, once, and if you're declined, don't be a jerk about it. It's not that hard.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Having first hand experience with this scenario several times, spot on.

knodi123 9y ago

> 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. 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.

adamlett 9y ago
How is it a slippery slope? Towards what? Will women eventually begin to feel uncomfortable about situations that are clearly not sexual? 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.
- knodi123 9y ago
  > How is it a slippery slope? 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.

jacquesm 9y ago

> 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. Why should that even be a factor? Unwanted is unwanted, whether they're in a committed relationship or not is not relevant at all.

DanBC 9y ago
"I have a partner" is just one way to tell someone their attention is unwanted. 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?"

solidsnack9000 9y ago

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> 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?
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  I don't mean that we should change the laws, so that the former grey area becomes the new illegal area; but rather that we should have a stricter attitude about the grey area. Sometimes people's attitude about these things is that, they acknowledge they are wrong, but since nothing illegal happened, they won't say or do anything. That's the grey area I'm talking about -- where there is broad acknowledgement that something is fishy, although it is not technically illegal. 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.

graphememes 9y ago

I've heard about both Men and Women VCs & CEOs making sexual advances using their position of power to those lower on the totem. It's very common.