8 ms·

I expect less VCs to take meetings with women, sadly. Not because they are likely to be problems, quite the opposite I'd wager. That's going to be the rather d

I expect less VCs to take meetings with women, sadly. Not because they are likely to be problems, quite the opposite I'd wager. That's going to be the rather depressing and sad reality of the shakeout of this.

nickpeterson 9y ago
These men are not attractive enough to make this ok.
- sidlls 9y ago
  "It's okay if you're attractive enough" is wrong on multiple levels no matter how it's phrased.
  - nickpeterson 9y ago
    That joke would have been ok if it was funny enough.
  - kelukelugames 9y ago
    Maybe the best way to phrase this is "If there is mutual attraction." Plenty of people marry their co workers. And there are plenty of non creepy/harassing ways to figure out if someone else is interested.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      That's a bit of a different scenario, though. The statement I objected to is sexist in at least one of these two ways: 1) it presumes that women appreciate these advances from men in positions of power simply because they're attractive (i.e. that harrassment is "forgiven by default" if it's done by an attractive guy) or, 2) women are vacuous and easily charmed by attractive men to the point where they don't recognize sexual harassment for what it is.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        It probably isn't sexist to say that people appreciate advances from someone who is extremely attractive, as long as both are available and looking. The problem is that it's inappropriate to express interest if you're in a position of power over someone, whether you're a man or a woman. I think you were saying that, but point #1 lacks that context.
        sidlls 9y ago
        That's fair, and I edited my comment to reflect that.
    - bt4u 9y ago
      Are there? Please explain them to me. I'm serious and want to learn
      - csomar 9y ago
        I'm not saying what sokoloff said is wrong (or doesn't work) but I'd not invite a woman (or a person) to coffee before getting a physical approval. This physical approval (eye contact + smile) is usually a certain indicator of interest. I'm talking about same level co-worker. I'd not go with a co-worker that I have power on (like being the direct manager, or the VC). I can see many ways where the relationship can go awfully wrong.
        morgante 9y ago
        How do you get physical approval without flirting? I have eye contact and smiling with lots of people. It's just being friendly.
      - sokoloff 9y ago
        (Assuming no supervisory relationship or other power imbalance,) Make an introduction. Make your mild/budding interest in them clear enough. Ask them to do something that's clearly not work with you. "Hey, want to get coffee sometime this weekend?" You'll find out if there's preliminary interest or not. If they're interested but busy, they'll figure out how to make that distinction clear. If "sorry; I'm busy" is the entire answer, just assume they're not interested. You get one "free" chance here; make it fairly clear that you're interested; don't invite them out for a "team dinner" and then arrange for the rest of the team to not show up or other chicanery.
        morgante 9y ago
        Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy. Sometimes it's not clear that you're asking them on a date. Ex. I've asked a professional associate out for drinks. I thought it was a date, she didn't, and she was offended when I tried to flirt a little. (I stopped once I realized she wasn't interested, but it could have been offensive.) Personally, I've stopped ever pursuing anyone who works in the same industry due to the potential for weird dynamics, but it's sometimes not as cut-and-dry as people make it sound. Like the example with Chris Sacca, is flirting with someone at a conference a form of sexual harassment?
sushisource 9y ago
Unfortunately I suspect you're right, at least in the shortish term. The culture in general does seem to be making progress in (fits and starts) this area, but it's gonna take a while.
zzalpha 9y ago
Because VCs are all populated by serial harassers who now realize they can't get away with this crap? Or are you saying these will be seen as false accusations and thus it'll scare off VCs who aren't run by mysogynist pieces of sh-t? Because I'm not sure what the alternative is. If a VC is not in the habit of harassing women, they have nothing to fear. In fact, it'll give them an opportunity to court talented entrepreneurs driven away from the immoral part of the VC spectrum.
- chrischen 9y ago
  "If you're not doing doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear." Ahh--if only this were ever true.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    Again, that statement is only false if these are false accusations. Are you saying they're false accusations?
    - chrischen 9y ago
      My point holds as long as false accusations are possible. Women, like men, are not all angels. Sexism, or even patriarchy, has no gender.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        False accusations are basically not possible though. The people getting in trouble right now are not the borderline cases of someone saying an awkward comment here or there. The people getting in trouble are the serial harassers who are so egregiously bad that a multitude of incidents are documented. Your big standard subtle sexist or tech douche bro has nothing to worry about.
        icelancer 9y ago
        >False accusations are basically not possible though. Of course they are. There is opportunity, therefore it is possible.
cyphunk 9y ago
this response would be as short lived as it is short sighted -- not taking into account that eventually.soon their bias would be measurable and again turn into ethical and PR nightmares for VC's that dont find a way to manage their male problem
- bt4u 9y ago
  "their male problem"?
jonny_eh 9y ago
Then they'll miss out on some of the best startups out there. A VC firm that respects women will have an easier time investing on good terms.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xenadu02 9y ago
> I expect less VCs to take meetings with women, sadly. Why? There's a really simple procedure that can solve these problems: Don't hit on, feel-up, or try to have sex with people you're in a professional business relationship with. That goes double for people you hold power over (managers to employees, VCs to Founders, etc). If you're really truly worried about false accusations then here's another fix you can have for free: record your meetings, texts, emails, and calls with founders and/or don't meet alone. I expect smart VCs that are interested in making money (as opposed to lording it over others or using their position to get sex) will continue to take lots of meetings with women.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  The smart ones might take more, less competition for the ones with good ideas/products.
- jbmorgado 9y ago
  > "If you're really truly worried about false accusations then here's another fix you can have for free: record your meetings, texts, emails, and calls with founders and/or don't meet alone." Well, there are two problems with that. 1 - It puts the burden of proof on the accused. I.E. it totally throws out of the window what has become a de facto human right and an universally established legal one in every democracy: "Innocent until proven guilty", into a: "Guilty until you can shows us some footage that proves you are not guilty" (which let's face it, it's basically impossible if the accuser is lying on purpose and knows how to do things). 2 - In America I think you are free to record other people interacting with you or in your office/home (perhaps some American can clarify this), but in many other countries, specially in most of EU, that's a crime. You can't go around recording people unless they are of public interest and in a public situation or they expressly consent to it.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    It may or may not be legal to record conversations in the U.S. depending on the state, and depending on whether or not other people consent to being recorded. California has 2-party consent law when it comes to recording conversations. In other words, it's a crime to record a conversation with another person and not tell them: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+conversaion+recording+law&oq=california+conversaion+recording+law&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4878j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=california+conversaion+recor.... (Law enforcement is exempt from this restriction, of course).
rtpg 9y ago
Any VC whose reaction to this is "oh I guess I should avoid taking meetings with women because I just can't know what goof will cause me to get sued" is probably already making some women uncomfortable. If you cannot understand how _stupidly easy_ it is to have a completely non-sexual, non-harassing conversation with a member of the opposite sex, you most definitely should read up on some stuff. I mean this in the most non-snarky way possible. Wouldn't it be nice if half the population weren't completely turned off by the idea of talking to anyone in tech?
- noir_lord 9y ago
  Sales at my company is female dominated, I'm in building next door so I run into them all the time, I just treat them as any other member of staff, politely but otherwise as an amorphous blob. I don't socialise with work mates outside of work events either, lines get crossed when you do in a alcohol orientated culture like mine. It's worked fine for me for 19 years employed. Had one female former colleague assume I was gay because I never hit on her (and she was attractive). Nope, just not interested in bollocking up a good work environment, it was interesting to watch the dynamic though. My simple rules for work. Treat everyone equally, small stuff matters, I went out for coffee and went and asked the cleaner if he wanted one, he looked surprised. Don't gossip ever, just don't. Leave the conversation if someone else starts. Be on time, meet deadlines, let boss know as soon as you know you won't. Be professional, you might know a customer for years but they are still Mr Smith until they say 'call me Bob'. When a boss makes what you think is a poor decision (business reasons, moral reasons etc) get it in writing. Always send a recap email after meetings, misunderstandings cost less the earlier you catch them (much like bugs).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Those are excellent rules. In fact they should be printed on page #1 of employee handbooks.
  - xor1 9y ago
mikeash 9y ago
The good ol' "I don't want to be accused of a crime, so I'll preemptively commit a crime" defense. I would strongly advise against discriminating against people based on their sex in the course of your business dealings.
- tomjakubowski 9y ago
  Is sexual discrimination in business actually a crime in the US? I thought it was typically handled in civil court.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I think you're right. It's "unlawful" but handled civilly. While looking up the relevant law, I looked through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex and various other things, and discovered that there is an explicit exception written in to the law for members of the Communist Party. So you can totally discriminate against any commies who might try to work for you. Not really relevant here, but so weird I just had to share.
    - tomjakubowski 9y ago
      Jeez, the Cold War was a strange time. The exception seems especially weird since political party affiliation wasn't a protected class in the law to begin with. I guess that meant you legally could say, "We only hire non-Communists, regardless of sex/race/religion/...; and white Communist Jain men of Estonian origin." I wonder if it was just a "safeguard" against members of CPUSA claiming their membership was a religious affiliation.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I found this PDF which describes some of the history behind this clause: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3038&context=bclr http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... It sounds like it was an amendment introduced by a confused lawmaker who wanted to make sure the law wouldn't stop companies from firing Communists. The amendment was then accepted on the basis that it didn't make any difference (since as you note party affiliation isn't protected in the first place), so it wouldn't do any harm to include it.
Shivetya 9y ago
There should be no one on one meetings for any plausible business venture. Both sides needs to have multiple players to protect all interest and keep discussions to the subject at hand. I would suggest than anyone who does get into such meetings simply demand the presence of multiple persons. This isn't a buddy lending money to another.
- 5thaccount 9y ago
  So, you want less meetings for women? Scenario with a female founder: "Listen, I want to meet you but as we have an at least one woman present policy for any meetings with female founders, adn all the female partners are booked for the next week, I'm afraid I can't meet you". Vs with a male: "Hells yes I'd love to catch up for coffee, I love your idea. Unfortunately, it will just be me as everyone else is busy". When you add a price to a subset of players but not others, that subset suffers worse results see: http://freakonomics.com/2009/03/10/the-price-of-disability-law/?c_page=3 http://freakonomics.com/2009/03/10/the-price-of-disability-l... > One example was the Americans With Disabilities Act, and we told the story of a Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon named Andrew Brooks. When a deaf patient came to him for a consultation, he realized that the A.D.A. required him to hire a sign-language interpreter for each visit if that’s what the patient wanted. The interpreter would cost $120 an hour, with a two-hour minimum, and Brooks wouldn’t be reimbursed by the insurance company: > That would mean laying out $240 to conduct an exam for which the woman’s insurance company would pay him $58 — a loss of more than $180 even before accounting for taxes and overhead.

nickpeterson 9y ago

These men are not attractive enough to make this ok.

sidlls 9y ago
"It's okay if you're attractive enough" is wrong on multiple levels no matter how it's phrased.
- nickpeterson 9y ago
  That joke would have been ok if it was funny enough.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  Maybe the best way to phrase this is "If there is mutual attraction." Plenty of people marry their co workers. And there are plenty of non creepy/harassing ways to figure out if someone else is interested.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    That's a bit of a different scenario, though. The statement I objected to is sexist in at least one of these two ways: 1) it presumes that women appreciate these advances from men in positions of power simply because they're attractive (i.e. that harrassment is "forgiven by default" if it's done by an attractive guy) or, 2) women are vacuous and easily charmed by attractive men to the point where they don't recognize sexual harassment for what it is.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      It probably isn't sexist to say that people appreciate advances from someone who is extremely attractive, as long as both are available and looking. The problem is that it's inappropriate to express interest if you're in a position of power over someone, whether you're a man or a woman. I think you were saying that, but point #1 lacks that context.
      - sidlls 9y ago
        That's fair, and I edited my comment to reflect that.
  - bt4u 9y ago
    Are there? Please explain them to me. I'm serious and want to learn
    - csomar 9y ago
      I'm not saying what sokoloff said is wrong (or doesn't work) but I'd not invite a woman (or a person) to coffee before getting a physical approval. This physical approval (eye contact + smile) is usually a certain indicator of interest. I'm talking about same level co-worker. I'd not go with a co-worker that I have power on (like being the direct manager, or the VC). I can see many ways where the relationship can go awfully wrong.
      - morgante 9y ago
        How do you get physical approval without flirting? I have eye contact and smiling with lots of people. It's just being friendly.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      (Assuming no supervisory relationship or other power imbalance,) Make an introduction. Make your mild/budding interest in them clear enough. Ask them to do something that's clearly not work with you. "Hey, want to get coffee sometime this weekend?" You'll find out if there's preliminary interest or not. If they're interested but busy, they'll figure out how to make that distinction clear. If "sorry; I'm busy" is the entire answer, just assume they're not interested. You get one "free" chance here; make it fairly clear that you're interested; don't invite them out for a "team dinner" and then arrange for the rest of the team to not show up or other chicanery.
      - morgante 9y ago
        Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy. Sometimes it's not clear that you're asking them on a date. Ex. I've asked a professional associate out for drinks. I thought it was a date, she didn't, and she was offended when I tried to flirt a little. (I stopped once I realized she wasn't interested, but it could have been offensive.) Personally, I've stopped ever pursuing anyone who works in the same industry due to the potential for weird dynamics, but it's sometimes not as cut-and-dry as people make it sound. Like the example with Chris Sacca, is flirting with someone at a conference a form of sexual harassment?

sushisource 9y ago

Unfortunately I suspect you're right, at least in the shortish term. The culture in general does seem to be making progress in (fits and starts) this area, but it's gonna take a while.

zzalpha 9y ago

Because VCs are all populated by serial harassers who now realize they can't get away with this crap? Or are you saying these will be seen as false accusations and thus it'll scare off VCs who aren't run by mysogynist pieces of sh-t? Because I'm not sure what the alternative is. If a VC is not in the habit of harassing women, they have nothing to fear. In fact, it'll give them an opportunity to court talented entrepreneurs driven away from the immoral part of the VC spectrum.

chrischen 9y ago
"If you're not doing doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear." Ahh--if only this were ever true.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Again, that statement is only false if these are false accusations. Are you saying they're false accusations?
  - chrischen 9y ago
    My point holds as long as false accusations are possible. Women, like men, are not all angels. Sexism, or even patriarchy, has no gender.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      False accusations are basically not possible though. The people getting in trouble right now are not the borderline cases of someone saying an awkward comment here or there. The people getting in trouble are the serial harassers who are so egregiously bad that a multitude of incidents are documented. Your big standard subtle sexist or tech douche bro has nothing to worry about.
      - icelancer 9y ago
        >False accusations are basically not possible though. Of course they are. There is opportunity, therefore it is possible.

cyphunk 9y ago

this response would be as short lived as it is short sighted -- not taking into account that eventually.soon their bias would be measurable and again turn into ethical and PR nightmares for VC's that dont find a way to manage their male problem

bt4u 9y ago
"their male problem"?

jonny_eh 9y ago

Then they'll miss out on some of the best startups out there. A VC firm that respects women will have an easier time investing on good terms.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

xenadu02 9y ago

> I expect less VCs to take meetings with women, sadly. Why? There's a really simple procedure that can solve these problems: Don't hit on, feel-up, or try to have sex with people you're in a professional business relationship with. That goes double for people you hold power over (managers to employees, VCs to Founders, etc). If you're really truly worried about false accusations then here's another fix you can have for free: record your meetings, texts, emails, and calls with founders and/or don't meet alone. I expect smart VCs that are interested in making money (as opposed to lording it over others or using their position to get sex) will continue to take lots of meetings with women.

noir_lord 9y ago
The smart ones might take more, less competition for the ones with good ideas/products.
jbmorgado 9y ago
> "If you're really truly worried about false accusations then here's another fix you can have for free: record your meetings, texts, emails, and calls with founders and/or don't meet alone." Well, there are two problems with that. 1 - It puts the burden of proof on the accused. I.E. it totally throws out of the window what has become a de facto human right and an universally established legal one in every democracy: "Innocent until proven guilty", into a: "Guilty until you can shows us some footage that proves you are not guilty" (which let's face it, it's basically impossible if the accuser is lying on purpose and knows how to do things). 2 - In America I think you are free to record other people interacting with you or in your office/home (perhaps some American can clarify this), but in many other countries, specially in most of EU, that's a crime. You can't go around recording people unless they are of public interest and in a public situation or they expressly consent to it.
- manfredo 9y ago
  It may or may not be legal to record conversations in the U.S. depending on the state, and depending on whether or not other people consent to being recorded. California has 2-party consent law when it comes to recording conversations. In other words, it's a crime to record a conversation with another person and not tell them: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+conversaion+recording+law&oq=california+conversaion+recording+law&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4878j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=california+conversaion+recor.... (Law enforcement is exempt from this restriction, of course).

rtpg 9y ago

Any VC whose reaction to this is "oh I guess I should avoid taking meetings with women because I just can't know what goof will cause me to get sued" is probably already making some women uncomfortable. If you cannot understand how _stupidly easy_ it is to have a completely non-sexual, non-harassing conversation with a member of the opposite sex, you most definitely should read up on some stuff. I mean this in the most non-snarky way possible. Wouldn't it be nice if half the population weren't completely turned off by the idea of talking to anyone in tech?

noir_lord 9y ago
Sales at my company is female dominated, I'm in building next door so I run into them all the time, I just treat them as any other member of staff, politely but otherwise as an amorphous blob. I don't socialise with work mates outside of work events either, lines get crossed when you do in a alcohol orientated culture like mine. It's worked fine for me for 19 years employed. Had one female former colleague assume I was gay because I never hit on her (and she was attractive). Nope, just not interested in bollocking up a good work environment, it was interesting to watch the dynamic though. My simple rules for work. Treat everyone equally, small stuff matters, I went out for coffee and went and asked the cleaner if he wanted one, he looked surprised. Don't gossip ever, just don't. Leave the conversation if someone else starts. Be on time, meet deadlines, let boss know as soon as you know you won't. Be professional, you might know a customer for years but they are still Mr Smith until they say 'call me Bob'. When a boss makes what you think is a poor decision (business reasons, moral reasons etc) get it in writing. Always send a recap email after meetings, misunderstandings cost less the earlier you catch them (much like bugs).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Those are excellent rules. In fact they should be printed on page #1 of employee handbooks.
- xor1 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

The good ol' "I don't want to be accused of a crime, so I'll preemptively commit a crime" defense. I would strongly advise against discriminating against people based on their sex in the course of your business dealings.

tomjakubowski 9y ago
Is sexual discrimination in business actually a crime in the US? I thought it was typically handled in civil court.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I think you're right. It's "unlawful" but handled civilly. While looking up the relevant law, I looked through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex and various other things, and discovered that there is an explicit exception written in to the law for members of the Communist Party. So you can totally discriminate against any commies who might try to work for you. Not really relevant here, but so weird I just had to share.
  - tomjakubowski 9y ago
    Jeez, the Cold War was a strange time. The exception seems especially weird since political party affiliation wasn't a protected class in the law to begin with. I guess that meant you legally could say, "We only hire non-Communists, regardless of sex/race/religion/...; and white Communist Jain men of Estonian origin." I wonder if it was just a "safeguard" against members of CPUSA claiming their membership was a religious affiliation.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I found this PDF which describes some of the history behind this clause: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3038&context=bclr http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... It sounds like it was an amendment introduced by a confused lawmaker who wanted to make sure the law wouldn't stop companies from firing Communists. The amendment was then accepted on the basis that it didn't make any difference (since as you note party affiliation isn't protected in the first place), so it wouldn't do any harm to include it.

Shivetya 9y ago

There should be no one on one meetings for any plausible business venture. Both sides needs to have multiple players to protect all interest and keep discussions to the subject at hand. I would suggest than anyone who does get into such meetings simply demand the presence of multiple persons. This isn't a buddy lending money to another.

5thaccount 9y ago
So, you want less meetings for women? Scenario with a female founder: "Listen, I want to meet you but as we have an at least one woman present policy for any meetings with female founders, adn all the female partners are booked for the next week, I'm afraid I can't meet you". Vs with a male: "Hells yes I'd love to catch up for coffee, I love your idea. Unfortunately, it will just be me as everyone else is busy". When you add a price to a subset of players but not others, that subset suffers worse results see: http://freakonomics.com/2009/03/10/the-price-of-disability-law/?c_page=3 http://freakonomics.com/2009/03/10/the-price-of-disability-l... > One example was the Americans With Disabilities Act, and we told the story of a Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon named Andrew Brooks. When a deaf patient came to him for a consultation, he realized that the A.D.A. required him to hire a sign-language interpreter for each visit if that’s what the patient wanted. The interpreter would cost $120 an hour, with a two-hour minimum, and Brooks wouldn’t be reimbursed by the insurance company: > That would mean laying out $240 to conduct an exam for which the woman’s insurance company would pay him $58 — a loss of more than $180 even before accounting for taxes and overhead.