4 ms·

It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech. This does create an incentive for women

by nnfy 9y ago

It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech. This does create an incentive for women to play a little loose with their professional behavior, and we only see one side of the story here. No, I don't mean to excuse McClure's behavior entirely; however, the fact that many of these women did not immediately cease contact after innapropriate advances, and continues to take advantage of funds and mentorship, suggests that these women are at least partly culpable. This isn't victim blaming; when you have hundreds of applicants to choose from/compete with, it isn't a surprise that people use/accept sexual flirtation (and sometimes favors) to get ahead/judge applicants. People have been selling sex for thousands of years. The only novelty here is the outrage.

jmcgough 9y ago
Yes, you are victim blaming. You are immediately assuming with no evidence that she's some kind of conniving she-devil. They are not in tech. They are in venture capital, and it's more challenging to get a position at a VC firm than it is to get a job at a startup as an engineer.
- nnfy 9y ago
  I am not assuming anything. In fact it is ironically the opposite, people are assuming that McClure is some kind of he-devil. The truth is likely much murkier. But because of the power imbalance, in our culture we are more critical of McClure. Also I'm speaking in general terms. Sexual favors are nothing new, regardless of whether you feel they are ethical.
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech. And again this comes up every single time. Just because someone is lonely didn't mean they're entitled to sexually harass someone else. Nor does being horny justify it. Nor does being angry justify violence. Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment is exactly why there is a law there protecting people from it. In part, it's illegal to put people in a position where they have to make that choice.
- nnfy 9y ago
  >Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment And what of the situation in which women continue to associate with their harassers? Do they truely have no liability? Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? Why does this have to be such an absurdly one sided topic? And yes, being lonely to the point of depression is indeed justification for making initial advances which may be misconstrued as sexual harassment, when monetary or other favors are accepted. If they do not cease when identified as unwelcome, they become a problem, sure. But the onus is also on the victim to communicate, and continued association is not only a mixed message, the victim begins to take advantage of the sexual tension by leading the harasser on and continuing to accept business favors. In our rush to protect these women, whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless, we only consider the imbalance of power and totally ignore the imbalance of sexual capital that is rife for exploitation especially by females. I also do not believe that down votes are designed to signal disagreement.
  - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
    > Do they truely have no liability? Liability in being the victim of harassment? > Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? It's not impossible to consider this, but this isn't what is being discussed. > and continued association is not only a mixed message, And again you keep missing the point. Continued associated is a result of a business relationship. That's exactly the point. By continuing a professional relationship with someone does not mean you are consenting to further sexual advances that you've already declined. > whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless Again noone is painting anyone as defenseless. You're view of this entire picture is skewed. It is about being placed in situations that people shouldn't have to be placed it. Or make decisions they shouldn't have to make. That doesn't make anyone defenseless. Victims of sexual harassment (whether men or women) have agency in life, it's just situations that they shouldn't be put in.

by nnfy 9y ago

jmcgough 9y ago

Yes, you are victim blaming. You are immediately assuming with no evidence that she's some kind of conniving she-devil. They are not in tech. They are in venture capital, and it's more challenging to get a position at a VC firm than it is to get a job at a startup as an engineer.

nnfy 9y ago
I am not assuming anything. In fact it is ironically the opposite, people are assuming that McClure is some kind of he-devil. The truth is likely much murkier. But because of the power imbalance, in our culture we are more critical of McClure. Also I'm speaking in general terms. Sexual favors are nothing new, regardless of whether you feel they are ethical.

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

> It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech. And again this comes up every single time. Just because someone is lonely didn't mean they're entitled to sexually harass someone else. Nor does being horny justify it. Nor does being angry justify violence. Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment is exactly why there is a law there protecting people from it. In part, it's illegal to put people in a position where they have to make that choice.

nnfy 9y ago
>Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment And what of the situation in which women continue to associate with their harassers? Do they truely have no liability? Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? Why does this have to be such an absurdly one sided topic? And yes, being lonely to the point of depression is indeed justification for making initial advances which may be misconstrued as sexual harassment, when monetary or other favors are accepted. If they do not cease when identified as unwelcome, they become a problem, sure. But the onus is also on the victim to communicate, and continued association is not only a mixed message, the victim begins to take advantage of the sexual tension by leading the harasser on and continuing to accept business favors. In our rush to protect these women, whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless, we only consider the imbalance of power and totally ignore the imbalance of sexual capital that is rife for exploitation especially by females. I also do not believe that down votes are designed to signal disagreement.
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  > Do they truely have no liability? Liability in being the victim of harassment? > Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? It's not impossible to consider this, but this isn't what is being discussed. > and continued association is not only a mixed message, And again you keep missing the point. Continued associated is a result of a business relationship. That's exactly the point. By continuing a professional relationship with someone does not mean you are consenting to further sexual advances that you've already declined. > whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless Again noone is painting anyone as defenseless. You're view of this entire picture is skewed. It is about being placed in situations that people shouldn't have to be placed it. Or make decisions they shouldn't have to make. That doesn't make anyone defenseless. Victims of sexual harassment (whether men or women) have agency in life, it's just situations that they shouldn't be put in.