21 ms·

Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

• drefanzor 9y ago
  Beyond creepy. It seems he has a pattern of this behavior, and I'm wondering how often he succeeds in his hunt. Thanks for getting your story out!
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • ithinkinstereo 9y ago
    Enough to keep on doing it year after year after year.
    • at-fates-hands 9y ago
      Which is the part that puzzles me. Successful guy, plenty of money. Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely. If he was after something deeper, hire a dating consultant and find something worthwhile. It just amazes me that people who have both the means and ability to get what they want do foolish stuff like he's doing.
      • sotojuan 9y ago
        People like him may be bored of using money as a means to get girls (no need to resort to prostitution for this even). Instead, they probably get off from methods like these.
      • jmcgough 9y ago
        It's probably some mix of a lack of impulse control and enjoying the chase. He meets an attractive woman and pursues her, without stopping to think whether or not what he's doing is inappropriate or even assault. Edit: I just finished reading the article. I hope this comment doesn't seem like I'm dismissing him as "Dave being Dave", because what he did was horrible. Plying her with copious amounts of alcohol and then backing her into a corner, refusing to leave her house. That's really messed up, like a frat boy's limited understanding of consent.
        • qubex 9y ago
          What I don't understand is why she kept drinking what he was pouring. (This is absolutely not a ”she was looking for it” remark... I'm just curious why in her initially sober state she had less incentive to avoid risk than when she was a little inebriated. His behaviour is absolutely nothing but despicable.)
          • CPLX 9y ago
            Have you ever spent a lot of time around people you look up to and respect professionally and/or who are a bit famous? You get flustered and want to be liked and accepted. It's natural, and the burden is on the person in the more powerful position not to exploit that.
            • qubex 9y ago
              A long while ago I made the decision that I would never drink if I were not comfortable with the situation. Trying to impress somebody is a situation I am not comfortable with, so in this particular situation I would not drink. I consider this a sound policy (but then of course, of course I would, because it is my policy, so I'm biased).
              • CPLX 9y ago
                That's nice in theory, but as long as sharing drinks with people is the world's most preeminent traditional method for socializing and turning casual acquaintances into close connections you're going to be necessarily swimming up stream with that policy.
                • qubex 9y ago
                  It's not a theory, it's my practice. There's many cultures/religions where drinking is not allowed and somehow they manage to socialise too. I just say "thank you, but no thank you, I don't drink" and that's the end of it, the one time somebody was pushy I just remarked I'm on medication (little white lie there) and that was it. Plus, incidentally, this is Malaysia... I lived in Malaysia for several years in the mid 2000s. There's a lot of heavy social drinking there but there's also a predominant Muslim culture (the Malays) who in theory should be barred from imbibing alcohol. As such, Malaysians are, in my experience, very adept at mixing in social situations where copious drinking is occurring while still allowing for some members that abstain from doing so on cultural grounds not to fell out of place. It isn't impossible to do. It isn't even difficult to do. In fact it's an absolute non-issue. Now, this is not terribly relevant in the present context (this was her house, I presume the alcohol was taken from her drinks cabinet, & cetera) but you should never allow anybody to pressure you into drinking because of social pressure. That somehow you seem to believe that the social situation begets the behaviour is a bit alarming.
      • jaggederest 9y ago
        > Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely. That's not the point. The point is precisely the power and coercion. Paying someone or finding someone like-minded doesn't hit that button anywhere near the same way that assault and blackmail does. If you're strong-arming women into sex, it's not about the sex, it's about the strong-arming. The very inappropriateness itself is the goal.
        • Jun8 9y ago
          Well put. "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power."
          • qubex 9y ago
            That sounds profound, but really it's just obscurantist (like most insightful but pithy proverbs, I might add).
        • Banthum 9y ago
          People say this all the time, but is there any actual rigorous evidence or argument for it? As far as I can tell it's just a way to demonize and dehumanize a group of really unpopular people in order to feel better about taking retribution against them. Comparable to saying, "She didn't murder her kids because of depression, but because she wanted them and her husband to suffer. The pain itself is the goal." So is this really a rent-paying belief? Or is it rather a way to feel good about hating someone and absolve yourself from the responsibility to understand the internal experiences of people who do bad things? This is important, by the way. If the goal is to feel good about hating people who did wrong, dehumanize away. If the goal is actually to prevent other people from doing wrong, you need understand accurately why the wrong was being done in the first place, and that's what I'm afraid isn't being done here.
          • jaggederest 9y ago
            I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who pays attention to the way good people are seduced into bad actions by the exercise of power beyond what's appropriate. I do this precisely because I want to avoid situations where my behavior and viewpoint will be compromised by the level of authority I wield. The very point I'm attempting to make, anyway, is that if you hand even the best humans inordinate power they will abuse it. That's how power is. It's not about the people - it's about the power structures we inhabit. Reference the milgram experiment, the stanford prison experiment, whatever you like. They're not definitive, by any means, but they show you what is possible.
      • sumedh 9y ago
        > It just amazes me that people who have both the means and ability to get what they want do foolish stuff like he's doing. "when you’re a star, they let you do it" - President Trump
• akanet 9y ago
  Thanks for sharing this. Reading Dave's post the first time, all I could think was "this seems like the most bland, cop-out, vague apology I've ever seen." He didn't list the specifics of what he felt bad about, and the whole thing read like a PR release to get ahead of any potential fallout. Reading the "kudos" from men who thought he was a great guy for coming forward only after years of harassment came to a head was unpleasant.
  • Gargoyle 9y ago
    Not in any way to defend Dave, but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But I strongly support them coming forward and telling their own stories. That has value and gives the accusations their proper perspective and gravity. It truly is different to be confronted with the details.
    • SwellJoe 9y ago
      Agreed, it's not an abuser's place to decide for their victim what details are made public. But, the direct apology to a victim should be clear and not place blame on them for how they interpreted a situation, "I'm sorry if you felt X" is the opposite of an apology, it is redirecting blame.
      • jacquesm 9y ago
        Direct aplogies to victims are addressed to those victims, they do not tend to be written as open letters for the world to read and don't usually attempt to whitewash the situation in which the encounter took place so the perpetrator looks better. If he'd left that part out it would be a lot better, if he left out the self congratulatory bits it would look better still. If that had been the only case then the book could be closed but it appears that that one encounter really was the tip of the proverbial iceberg and I really hope for mr. McClure that there isn't any worse down the line for him because this could end up being both expensive and possible a legal issue. Just this encounter alone would be enough to get him booked in many places.
• Insanity 9y ago
  It is unfortunate that these kind of things happen. They shed a bad light on our industry as a whole due to (hopefully a few) rotten apples. Thanks for writing this, takes courage!
  • cbhl 9y ago
    Let's stop perpetuating this myth that this is a "few rotten apples". This is a systemic problem in our industry, and we need to all realize this, so that we can start teaching each other what behavior is and is not appropriate in a very clear, concise, and precise manner.
    • vertex-four 9y ago
      Specifically - the issue wouldn't exist if the parts of society these people exist in didn't implicitly enable this sort of behaviour.
    • hectorlorenzo 9y ago
      My thoughts exactly. There's a gold rush in Silicon Valley (or the tech industry in general) and usually, these rushes attract jerks. You can't create a system of fierce individualism and predation and then act surprised if this behaviour extends to every facet of life. I read somewhere, a while ago, that assholes moved in herds to Wall Street in the 80s-90s, and now they've decided to move to California.
    • sethjgore 9y ago
      I agree that we can teach each other what kind of culture we want to instill, and one that allows people to work in an environment that boosts their potential. However, from my observations, to flat out list a finite list of behaviorism, will manifest yet another set of behaviorism, which will manifest another list. I do not view this as a simple systematic problem, but rather a deep-wedged symptom of a sick society. We all are complicit. A society that is focused on results and ego and success will always encourage such behavior (of debasing others, exploiting others regardless of their being — even white men are exploited and debased by other "higher-paying" white men). No set of rules will change this until we change our society's culture. The culture cannot change through scolding, but rather a deep, opening conversation that will be conversed again and again until people find no use for the word harassment or sexual harassment or the desire to hurt or debase others in name of success.
• nnfy 9y ago
  >Non-consensual, sexual advances are not the same as flirtatious comments from a creepy dude It is refreshing to see this much needed distinction; I think many people in modern society have been conflating flirtation with harassment for the past few years. Still, not to speak against the author or victimized women, but I cannot understand why sexual harassment takes such a toll on women. I've been sexually harassed by other men before, and somehow it wasn't as big of a problem as it seems to be to outspoken individuals online. I've been beaten by strangers before, and even that was something I got over much more quickly than the years of scarring that women like the author seem to experience from unwanted physical advances. I cannot understand how being propositioned and kissed against one's will is such a terrible fate to suffer. I suspect that much of the recent backlash against harassment is mostly a result of conditioning, wherein women learn from society to feel more violated and take these advances more personally than they should. After all, I'd take an uncomfortable kiss over a beating any day, and being put into the hospital by a couple of violent strangers did not leave me, or other men that I know, with a lifetime of discomfort. I do not intend to be offensive, I simply cannot resolve the discrepancy in my mind. Is this a difference in male and female mindset?
  • vertex-four 9y ago
    Intimacy is one of the only things we (should) entirely get to choose who to share with. For everything else, there's societal expectations of some degree of doing things even though you don't really want to - but intimacy is the one case where as a society, we supposedly strongly believe that there should be no expectations that you are intimate with anyone you don't want to be intimate with. Women tend to get taught this idea more than men, who are instead taught that if they don't want to be intimate with someone, then something is either wrong with them or wrong with the person in question. Now have someone force you to perform intimate acts with them, after a lifetime of being taught that you get to decide who to be intimate with. As a terrible analogy: a lot of middle-class people for whom part of their primary goal in life is to own a house tend to never quite recover from being burgled. The reason for that is that they consider their house the one safe place they have. For many women, intimacy is the one safe thing they have.
  • novia 9y ago
• TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  "It’s not just inappropriate, it’s assault." I'm going to have to stop reading there. Now, of course, I don't know what happened, I wasn't there. What I'm seeing in front of me are glowing pixels that don't constitute a conviction. In my opinion if you believe you've been the subject of assault you ought to approach the police, or probably a lawyer.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • jacquesm 9y ago
    Good luck as a foreigner in Malaysia approaching the local police to file a complaint for assault based on a forced kiss against another foreigner who happens to be a millionaire. But that doesn't make it right. Note that it is extremely hard to get these cases to go anywhere in the West where you know the law and where the lines tend to be drawn rather sharper than in Asia (unless there is drugs involved).
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • afeezaziz 9y ago
      I do not believe that Malaysian police take a laidback attitude to sexual assault reports sd you have implied here. Even cases of a woman being sexually assaulted by another woman is also taken seriously in Malaysia. I think you need to stop having preconceived ideas about South East Asian countries. They might look similar but they are not.
      • jacquesm 9y ago
        I invite you to read: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/236666.pdf https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/236666.pdf "Rape and Domestic Violence: Rape, including marital rape, is a criminal offense, as are most forms of domestic violence. The penal code states that rape is punishable by a prison term of up to 20 years and whipping. Marital rape does not have a minimum penalty, but the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. According to women’s groups, an average of 10 women were raped each day; more than half of these women were under 16. A study by All Women’s Action Society found only one in 10 reported rape cases came to court. A report by the Women’s Centre for Change showed that perpetrators were convicted in only 4 to 6 percent of cases. The latest police statistics available showed 2,718 rapes were reported in 2013, of which 52 percent involved girls age 16 and below. Cultural attitudes and a reported lack of sympathy from the largely male police force resulted in many victims not reporting rapes. Many government hospitals had crisis centers where victims of rape and domestic abuse could make reports without going to a police station. NGOs and political parties also cooperated to provide counseling for rape victims. Women’s groups asserted that courts were inconsistent in punishing rapists." So, how much do you think would happen if a foreigner reported a forced kiss by another foreigner?
• losvedir 9y ago
  What a terrible story. I'm sorry she had to go through that and appreciate her sharing it. I'm curious about the legal aspect of it. "Sexual assault" is a crime, right? The worst repercussions I hear from these stories are maybe a resignation at best. But if this is truly a crime shouldn't it be prosecuted?
  • mc32 9y ago
    These accounts happened in Malaysia, so someone would have to initiate an investigation and then seek extradition. It's not likely to happen. On the other hand, this man has apparently a history of this behavior, so potentially there are similar actions in the US and people have yet to reveal them.
  • Geekette 9y ago
    Many victims decline to prosecute to avoid the mental toll the process takes, including having to relive their trauma, having their credibility torn to shreds and possibility of the perp being acquitted even in face of compelling evidence. Trying to recover and generally move on with their lives is already hard enough.
    • roywiggins 9y ago
      Depending on the jurisdiction, strictly speaking it's not up to the victim to pursue charges. The prosecutor can bring charges whether the victim wants to or not. In practice if the victim doesn't want to testify there's usually no way to get a conviction so it won't be prosecuted. But the decision lies with the prosecutor. (There are some exceptions- private prosecutions used to be the norm in English common law, but the US largely didn't seem to inherit that portion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sf... ) http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-what-does-it-mean-and-who-does-it.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-wh...
    • at-fates-hands 9y ago
      It's a classic he said / she said situation. Based on how he isolates the women, this is exactly the scenario he wants. No witnesses and plenty of time and space to wiggle out of his own culpability if it should arise. His apology speaks volumes about his process
• crispytx 9y ago
  If you invite someone over to your apartment to drink scotch, and then they come on to you, that's not sexual assault. Sexual assault is when someone has sex with another person without their permission.
  • codezero 9y ago
    When they say no and they persist, it is.
    • mrkrab 9y ago
      If you two were alone, you had sex, and you go to a doctor later and there are no signs of violence, how can you prove you actually said "no"? Honest question.
      • sokoloff 9y ago
        You probably can't. That affects whether or not you can reasonably pursue it, but doesn't change the objective fact of whether or not it was consensual.
      • codezero 9y ago
        It's damn near impossible. Given the amount of pushback women get from the system, something should be done to help. Suffering systematic abuse then having a system that basically says, "You wanted it," must be extremely draining. Our system is only slightly above ones that require a male relative to have witnessed the assault before accepting that it wasn't the woman who committed a crime.
      • mejari 9y ago
        The likelihood of successfully prosecuting a crime does not affect the reality of whether or not that crime occurred.
  • sokoloff 9y ago
    Really?! Does it matter what she was wearing, too? From the story, she had a bunch of people over, most of them left, one stayed, propositioned her (not assault), heard no, was asked to leave, then forced her into a corner and kissed her (very clearly assault and very clearly sexual harassment IMO [1]). There are many "grey area" situations surrounding behavior in apartments with alcohol. This, IMO, isn't one of them. [1] - This previously said "clearly sexual assault" in the parentheses.
• TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Because women are weak victims of the inappropriate behaviour of men. Why can't women be strong and have power? Because that wouldn't fit the narrative.
  • justasitsounds 9y ago
    How many times do you have to choose to not walk down a particular street at night because of the real risk that you will be raped? How many times have you have to 'politely' brush off some random creep, without hurting his feelings, to avoid being intimidated, coerced and assaulted? It's almost impossible to comprehend if you don't live with the very real possibility hanging over your head that today is the day when someone, most likely someone you know, is going to try to rape you
  • dang 9y ago
    Please don't do ideological trolling here. If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692413 and marked it off-topic.
• jacquesm 9y ago
  It's going to be pretty impossible to sow doubt about the 'setting' on this one like he did with the previous instance. Makes you wonder how often this sort of thing played out, 10's of times? 100's?
  • ithinkinstereo 9y ago
    At least 12 women according to the update in Cheryl's post. Most, if not all of these women, are also people of color according to Sarah Kunst. <<Update>> I just spoke to Sarah Kunst and learned from her that at least 12 other women including me, have faced sexual harassment or advances from Dave of various degrees. Some of them are portfolio company CEOs like myself. They’re afraid to come out, but some eventually will. I had doubts publishing this, but after talking to Sarah, it is clear to me now that I can’t just sit silently and trust that Dave’s behavior will stop, or that we can just file his misconduct under “Dave being Dave.” This is about protecting other women who might otherwise be subjected to his future unwanted sexual advances.
    • ForrestN 9y ago
      Why was this downvoted? Asking sincerely in an effort to understand and learn.
      • jacquesm 9y ago
        Threads like this get pretty weird voting patterns, I wouldn't read too much into it. Upvoted GP as a corrective measure.
      • ithinkinstereo 9y ago
        Because there are tons of apologists in the valley. Men who also harass women like McClure and feel they're entitled to it, especially against women of color.
        • dang 9y ago
          The overwhelming majority of HN votes don't come from "the valley". And to the extent we have data on this the geographical trend is probably opposite to what you're suggesting.
• crispytx 9y ago
  Yeah, that's a ridiculous allegation. If you invite someone over to your apartment to drink scotch, and then they come on to you, that's definitely not sexual assault. Sexual assault is where someone has sex with another person without their permission.
  • dzhang50 9y ago
    From the article: "After the meeting, Khailee, Dave, and a few others (including two other females), came over to my apartment to brainstorm about 500 Startups’ new Growth / Distribution Accelerator, Cerebro (later rebranded as Distro Dojo) and also a hashtag for MaGIC, the organization that I was leading." Does this sound like "inviting someone over to your apartment to drink scotch"? Do you think it's appropriate for someone to "come on to you" in this scenario? Your definition of sexual assault is also completely incorrect. The definition of sexual assault from the US Department of Justice is: "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient."
    • crispytx 9y ago
      #VirtueSignalling
      • dzhang50 9y ago
        #NoComeback
      • roywiggins 9y ago
        Citing the Justice Department is "virtue signalling"? Are you high?
  • jacquesm 9y ago
    You probably should have at least read until the end of the encounter.
  • cblock811 9y ago
    Did you even read the article? "At this point, I led him to the door and told him he needs to leave. On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me, and said something along the lines of “Just one night, please just this one time.” Then he told me how he really likes strong and smart women like me. Disgusted and outraged, I said no firmly again, pushed him away and made sure he was out my door." ^ How do you define that?
• Geekette 9y ago
  Clarification in response to comments that assume I'm the OP: It's not my story, I just reposted from author's site.
• crispytx 9y ago
  Dave McClure didn't rape anybody. Did he behave like a creep? Sure. Is he a rapist? No. (sexualAssault == rape)
  • Lazare 9y ago
    Sexual assault includes things such as kissing. Rape does not. They are not equivalent terms. > sexualAssault == rape You realise you can't just make up definitions, right?
  • sokoloff 9y ago
    > (sexualAssault == rape) That depends on the jurisdiction. I have edited my comment in light of your response to more precisely reflect my claim that it is assault and sexual harassment, but depending on jurisdiction I agree that it may not meet the legal definition of sexual assault.
  • dang 9y ago
    We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692466 and marked it off-topic.
• throwaway02924 9y ago
  > The fact that I had to say no multiple times, and that he had push himself onto me and kissed me without my consent was way more than crossing the line of inappropriateness. It’s sexual assault. As the father of someone who underwent significant psychological trauma following a rape, I actually find this comparison quite offensive. Obviously the behaviour is completely inappropriate, but the effect is unlikely the same as that of violent sexual assault.
• crispytx 9y ago
  This is so stupid. There are so many horrible things that can happen in life. A bald ugly guy trying to kiss you is not anywhere near the top of that list. And furthermore, the majority of first sexual encounters involve going back to someone's apartment for drinks. Women rarely tell the people they want to sleep with that they want to sleep with them, they drop subtle hints, like inviting you back to their place to drink scotch.
  • sctb 9y ago
    Could you please stop spamming the thread with this?
• cm2012 9y ago
  Wow. Reading that, I would be too grossed out to touch the hand of someone like Dave. Creep is not putting it strongly enough - serial sexual assaulter is correct.
  • Pxtl 9y ago
    Yes, calling him creepy is horribly unfair to creeps everywhere.
• pikachuaintcool 9y ago
  What a drama queen. This guy's career is over.
  • jacquesm 9y ago
    Problematically ambiguous comment.
    • pikachuaintcool 9y ago
      I mean, I don't know the guy. Maybe all this lynching is justified, maybe it isn't. But all I can glean from this article is that the woman who wrote it is blowing her interactions with him a bit out of proportion. Mind you, I've experienced my fair share of sexual assault as well. To me, this is just some guy who has no game who came off a bit too strongly. Regardless, he has some learning to do.
      • jacquesm 9y ago
        > But all I can glean from this article is that the woman who wrote it is blowing her interactions with him a bit out of proportion. Where do you get this from? It read pretty factual and dry to me. It also puts the lie to his statement about that other encounter that he 'misread the situation', there clearly was no misreading the situation here and yet he persisted, twice.
        • pikachuaintcool 9y ago
          Sorry, this discussion isn't happening. I just noticed my comments got removed. Clearly, my opinions aren't wanted here.
          • dang 9y ago
            We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. Would you please stop creating accounts to do that with?
• ori_b 9y ago
  I am glad to see more people speaking up. I also really like the policies proposed at the end of this, and I would love to see them get implemented.
• dawhizkid 9y ago
  Question for me is when did Christine Tsai know and why was nothing done sooner? She tweeted (now deleted) about Caldbeck a week before asking “Where’s the Outrage?” when it now sounds like she kept the real reason why McClure was put in a “limited” role in April for reasons unknown to even the 500 staff (and obviously the public until this past weekend) https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-claims-500-startups-leadership-delayed-acknowledging-mcclures-harassment-as-new-allegations-surface/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-claims-500-... Hard for me to defend the public moral outrage she showed for the Binary cap situation when she clearly kept silent about similar issues with her own firm.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• Zikes 9y ago
  > Generalized sexist statements and behavior that convey insulting or degrading attitudes about women (e.g. Insulting remarks, obscene jokes or humor about sex or women in general) This should be generalized to include both sexes. I often see insulting or degrading comments about men by people in the tech world, especially with terms like "mansplaining".
  • pikachuaintcool 9y ago
    How about we generalize them to include neither sex? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    • Zikes 9y ago
      That's exactly what I'm proposing, just change the wording to "Generalized sexist statements and behavior that convey insulting or degrading attitudes", removing the "about women" part. Yet here I sit at -3 points for suggesting I deserve the same protections.
  • ab4570 9y ago
    I agree with you. I don't agree with you being down-voted. Complaining about the down-voting does you no good though.
    • Zikes 9y ago
      I don't care.
• ChuckMcM 9y ago
  As the father of three daughters I always cringe a bit when I read things like this. Thanks Cheryl for sharing your story, and men please remember it isn't how you feel about whether or not an action was appropriate or inappropriate, it is how they feel about it.
  • ToadLegs 9y ago
    By that standard, the only way to never do anything inappropriate is to never do anything.
    • jsmthrowaway 9y ago
      HN badly needs a waiting period for new accounts, between these threads and political ones after the election. Like, even an hour.
    • abritinthebay 9y ago
      No. If you think that is the only way - to interact without a shred of empathy or self-awareness of your own actions - then you may be part of the problem.
      • ToadLegs 9y ago
        So what's another way to do it? I don't know of any way to reliably predict other people's reactions to what I do.
        • thaumaturgy 9y ago
          Try to recall the character of someone who doesn't get accused of assaulting or abusing other people, or making them feel uncomfortable -- someone who is respected by people of all creeds and demographics -- and then behave like that. It's not that hard, really. Just be a grown-up. Put away the childish fantasies of finding self-worth by bedding lots of women and flaunting wealth and power, and treat everyone you interact with as though they're actual people.
• ithinkinstereo 9y ago
  It's 10x sad because she's an Asian female (most of the victims are either Asian or another minority group). Unfortunately there is a lot of self-hating and white-is-right mentality among Asians. Why do you think so many westerners goto Asia to "teach" English? Edit: this is an un-PC opinion and casting a wide net, so downvote all you want, but this is well documented and discussed online. And if you've traveled throughout Asia, or have any experience living there, you know this is way more common than just a fringe opinion.
  • crush-n-spread 9y ago
    Why do you think so many westerners goto Asia to "teach" English? I think they go there mostly to experience a culture totally foreign to them. The food and lifestyle is cheap, it's very beautiful, and quite safe.
    • pandler 9y ago
      This. I find it hard to believe the entire "teach English in Asia" industry is fueled by people who base their decision on some fantasy to have sex with Asians (or just their students? I'm not sure what they are implying), and it certainly doesn't mesh with my experience of English teachers abroad.
      • aaron695 9y ago
        "teach English in Asia" (....Imply are slightly dodgy, my interpretation) This part of OP's comment is a very well known trope for people working in Asia. It could just be a incorrect sterotype but personally this part of the comment should not have been flagged. (Currently there's a trope the IT field has a issue)
        • abritinthebay 9y ago
          Possibly related to that most of the people that go do that are young (20s usually) and with western attitudes to sex and party culture. It’s likely more a culture clash than an agenda
• apsec112 9y ago
  Thanks for stepping forward. It takes a lot of courage to come out publicly with such a personal story, especially when the offender is as well-known as Dave McClure.
• l33tbro 9y ago
  First question: which PR agency hand-crafted that disingenuous apology on Dave McClure's blog? Second question: did 500 Startups foot the bill (the allegations are kryptonite to their brand)?
  • Pxtl 9y ago
    I would think a paid professional pr firm would know not to half-ass an apology and would do a better job.
• al_chemist 9y ago
  This thread look heavily censored. That doesn't encourage to speak up.
  • dang 9y ago
    'Censorship' has become more pejorative than informative, but you're right that users are downvoting and flagging comments; I think pretty fairly. Wherever moderators have intervened (in any way that affects comment visibility), we've posted comments saying so. That goes for the previous threads too. Not every kind of comment is welcome here. HN is trying for higher-quality discussion. (Trying and failing, of course. But we can always fail better.) Comments that destroy the possibility of higher-quality discussion should certainly be flagged—otherwise the community is hostage to every kind of trolling.
    • Zikes 9y ago
      Please review my recent comments on this post, which have been flag killed. If you believe they were fairly downvoted and deserve to be flagged, then please delete or permanently ban my account.
      • thaumaturgy 9y ago
        Trying to re-frame a discussion about the victimization of women to include offhand comments about men is not just off-topic but insensitive too. In the general case, you can't do that in any discussion where tensions are high without either doing it deftly and articulately or being quickly shouted down.
        • Zikes 9y ago
          The author's article ended with concrete suggestions for improving the industry. The people going into those suggestions are emotionally charged, and more willing to accept them blindly. I do not think that is appropriate, and I think a mild suggestion to change the wording so as not to be sexist while not denying the author's experiences is perfectly acceptable. I have respect and sympathy for the author, and I believe that she offers a valid yet one-sided perspective on the situation in the industry. All I ask is that as we learn from her experience and move towards resolving it for all such victims, we do not do so in a manner that would unfairly disadvantage or place undue burden or harm on innocent men, just for lack of sufficiently scoped wording.
• jmcgough 9y ago
  Elizabeth Yin (500 startups partner) just quit: https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-claims-500-startups-leadership-delayed-acknowledging-mcclures-harassment-as-new-allegations-surface/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-claims-500-...
• whiddershins 9y ago
  "Haunted me to this day." He pushed her in to a corner and kissed her. She kicked him out. His behavior is totally inexcusable. No question. But seriously? Do I live in an alternate reality where drunk people do all sorts of borderline illegal inappropriate stuff on a regular basis? Because in my world people do that. And it sucks. And no one likes it. And it can and should be called out. But I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years, especially not someone who has the strength of will to start a company. It may seem insensitive, but I am being pragmatic: whether or not something "haunts" you has as much to do with your way of framing an event and your attitude towards trauma as the actual event. Just because someone else did something wrong is no reason to carry it with you for years. This is no commentary on whether or not this guy's pattern of behavior is reprehensible. I am literally talking about that one incident in isolation and its effect on the author's psyche.
  • xyrnoble 9y ago
    All it takes is one incident to indicate the possibility that something can occur. It can profoundly change your outlook on the world. Depending on the event this can be irreversibly negative.
  • mc32 9y ago
    I've been assaulted at gunpoint. It does not haunt me. Would it haunt someone else, depending on the person, probably, yes. Things affect different people differently.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• khazhoux 9y ago
  (flagged, whatever0
  • tptacek 9y ago
    Read more closely. McClure was the one pouring. This is a classic abuser tactic.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • gech 9y ago
      Who was the one drinking the pour?
  • mc32 9y ago
    To an untrained eye, this looks more like an "MO". Maybe it's insecurity, maybe it's inability to relate, maybe he needs something to "relax" him [and target], maybe it's what's worked in the past for him. I don't know him. But it appears that his MO involves getting people to drink alcohol and him laying it down thick [in parlance, "put his moves on"].
  • panic 9y ago
    Do you think Dave kept pouring scotch into her glass on accident? He knows society has a tendency to excuse behavior from a drunk person that they'd never accept from someone sober. You're not excusing his behavior directly, but by suggesting that alcohol is relevant to this situation, you're promoting a narrative that abusers love to exploit.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • novia 9y ago
      Excellent point. I opened up the book "Why Does He Do That?" about abusers to find a relevant quote, but when I got back to the thread you had beat me to the punch. Here's what I was going to post: Alcohol does not a change a person’s fundamental value system. People’s personalities when intoxicated, even though somewhat altered, still bear some relationship to who they are when sober. When you are drunk you may behave in ways that are silly or embarrassing; you might be overly familiar or tactlessly honest, or perhaps careless or forgetful. But do you knock over little old ladies for a laugh? Probably not. Do you sexually assault the clerk at the convenience store? Unlikely. People’s conduct while intoxicated continues to be governed by their core foundation of beliefs and attitudes, even though there is some loosening of the structure. Alcohol encourages people to let loose what they have simmering below the surface. The book argues that the common thread among all abusive people is a sense of entitlement.
• gexla 9y ago
  One of the most eye opening experiences I have ever had in the workplace was in a sexual harassment class which was required for a big corp. The instructor laid out the rules, but people in the class had a hard time grasping the logical structure. Two different scenarios which clearly had the same structure would trip people up by swapping out variables. I was never good with math, but I picked up on these structures right way. Maybe the class should have been taught as a philosophy class from the start. It was amazing to me how difficult such an important subject was for people to pick up. As difficult as sexual harassment is to learn and teach, I imagine most smaller businesses / start-ups don't make much of an attempt, if at all. Obviously HR is lacking. This might be a good place for improvement for a start-up to tackle.
  • pvg 9y ago
    'Don't try to sexually force yourself on someone who just asked you to leave their residence' is not a complex issue limited by inadequate HR training. It's basic sane social behaviour. McClure didn't do this because he was unaware of the intricacies of workspace laws and regulations. He did it because he thought he could and would get away with it.
• orthoganol 9y ago
  I like it - the all or nothing approach is terrifying as a guy, and defining levels of inappropriateness with exact descriptions of actions is very helpful for those who are freaked out they are going to unwittingly harass someone they are attracted to even just acting naturally. I'm hopefully not belittling the recipients of undesired advances of VC assholes like McClure, but I hope it's also not wrong to say these scandals induce anxiety in a ton of well meaning lower level guys who get circled over as part of the problem, and thinking of a solution that considers this large segment of guys is nice to hear.
  • emmab 9y ago
    Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no goes a long way. Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"
    • marcosdumay 9y ago
      > "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?" Oh, that sounds creepy.
      • emmab 9y ago
        You could further constrain the time period e.g. "this evening". If its creepy to ask in some situation it must be even more creepy to do in that situation.
    • novia 9y ago
      Often the counter-argument to this is that it feels artificial, unnatural, and it will definitely kill the mood. So I want to preemptively address it. When a guy asks before touching me, and of course I'm already interested, it makes me melt. It is so sexy and it definitely improves the mood. I just want to point to myself as one data-point. If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model walks up to you and asks if she can rub your shoulders. Would you be like, "Uh, no, by communicating with me you have completely killed my interest"?
• whiddershins 9y ago
  I am seeing an enormous percentage of comments here flagged, including one of mine which is a first for me on this site, or any site. Upon trying to figure out what's going on I think we need a meta-instruction for comments here? Like, perhaps the intention is to keep comments focused more on the general problem of sexual harassment in the industry and to not start making a bunch of assertions regarding the specifics of the author's story? Although I personally think khazhoux's comment pointing to alcohol being a common factor is a pretty good one. I'm actually having trouble understanding where the line is here so personally going to run away from the thread, but I think a better indication of the ground rules might be helpful to everyone.
  • panic 9y ago
    First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons. I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're providing tools for abusers to justify and minimize their abuse. Obviously flagging isn't going to solve the problem on its own, but maybe if I go into more detail it will help a little more. Both comments focus on what their authors imagine themselves doing in a similar situation: > …I never drink more than a wee amount (one glass max) when I'm with co-workers in any sort of work setting. > …I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years, especially not someone who has the strength of will to start a company. Then they generalize their imagined behavior to what all people should do or should be able to do: > But on general principle, he shouldn't have gotten drunk (which I assume he was??), nor she. > Just because someone else did something wrong is no reason to carry it with you for years. Who are these comments being written for? In both cases, the person being imagined is the person being abused. It's possible to read these as advice for people potentially facing abuse: don't drink, don't dwell on the past. There are a few problems with this interpretation. First of all, they take abuse as a fixed part of the world that we just need to deal with: "Because in my world people do that." The conclusion is that people being abused need to change their behavior to avoid it. But the truth is that the abusers are the ones who need to change their behavior. The second problem is that the advice doesn't work. People are abused whether they drink or not. Memories and thoughts have a way of surfacing whether you intentionally dwell on them or not. If you can't imagine an event haunting Cheryl for years after she has explicitly told you that one has, the problem is with your imagination, not her experiences. So as advice, these comments are relatively weak. Is there a sense in which they have a stronger function? Let's see: "I never drink more than a wee amount" isn't excusing Dave's behavior directly. But it makes a strong implication -- if you do drink more than that, you're less responsible for what happens. Do you think Dave kept pouring scotch into her glass on accident? He knows society has a tendency to excuse behavior from a drunk person that they'd never accept from someone sober. "I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years" doesn't mean Dave's behavior was inconsequential. But it makes a strong implication -- that the consequences of his behavior would be much less if Cheryl didn't make such a big deal out of it. Both of these perspectives enable abuse. Abusers intentionally use alcohol to provide cover for their behavior. Even when they were planning to do it all along. Dave McClure abused his power to put Cheryl Yeoh into a position she "shouldn't" be in -- so he could turn around and use the very fact she was in such a position to minimize people's reaction to his abuse! Then, when she admits how much the abuse affected her, he relies on comments like yours to remind us that his role in this was incredibly minor -- just one event that probably lasted less than a minute. The real abuse was just in her head. I don't think you would put it this bluntly, but that's the story the abuser is hoping you take away. That is to say, the primary function of comments like these is not actually providing advice to people who might be abused. Following this advice will not help them. Whether intentionally or not, their primary function ends up as tools that abusers use to justify and minimize their abuse. That's why I flagged them -- to take these tools out of abusers' hands in whatever small way I can.
• EdSharkey 9y ago
  Don't date women from work. Don't dip your pen in the company ink, guys. Just from a power perspective, there's no way to get it right, even if you think she's your peer.
  • mc32 9y ago
    That's good advice for people _already_ in a relationship. I don't think that's good advice for singles. Outside of school (writ large) work is one of the places people get to know each other, socialize and mingle. It would be sad to see one of the main places people get to meet to be set "off-limits". There is nothing mysterious. Just don't be crude. Don't buck convention. Know accepted social norms.
    • EdSharkey 9y ago
      Oh goodness, why take that risk? Why would a single guy aching for sex start their hunt in the workplace? Your concept of what the workplace is for is really screwed up. Unwise. Foolish danger. I have been told stories of companies with no-dating rules where inevitable attraction and secret love affair between coworkers led them to both quit in order to go public with their romance. That's not what I'm talking about. Obviously, nature is powerful, and attraction between coworkers can just simply happen. I'm not talking about accidents, which are hopefully few and far between. I'm talking about conscious choices that men make. It's not like there aren't equally convenient ways to meet women to those at work. If you want a (chaotic) hookup, get on Tinder or Craig's List or the local club. If you want the thrill of the meat market, try Match. If you'd like to get married, goto eharmony.
• sgentle 9y ago
  I've seen a few comments on this and articles like this to the effect of "so any time you proposition a woman it could be assault?" and I think it's worth responding to that idea in general. Yes, there is generally an expectation that men initiate romance, and that is an unfair burden both on men (who have to do the propositioning) and women (who have to decline unwanted propositions). For game-theoretic reasons, this is difficult to change, but it is changing slowly. In the mean time, restrictions on how to initiate disproportionately affect men, and a lack of restrictions disproportionately affects women. Even more so in situations of gender imbalance (look up "Petrie Multiplier" for more on this). I believe it's for this reason that some men are resistant to "err on the safe side" type policies; as long as they are expected to initiate, they can't succeed without taking risks. But it's impossible to address this without also including the effect of power imbalance. Even in a world where women initiate 100% of the time, men would in almost all cases still be more physically powerful, and sometimes hold other kinds of social or institutional power. This power can be used to coerce, assault or rape but, even if it isn't, the consequences of a power disparity can be an implicit part of the equation (cf "I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go"). So, what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Sarah Kunst? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a potential employer that made it more difficult for her to say no. Worse still, "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" makes that relationship explicit. And what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Cheryl Yeoh? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a physically stronger man alone with her in her bedroom, and then forcing himself on her when she said no. I repeat: he could only have done this because he was physically stronger, and even if he didn't, the possibility was there. So to anyone who's wondering if this means men hitting on women is now outlawed, I hope this can provide a healthy framework for thinking about it. It's okay to hit on people, but avoid doing so in situations with a power imbalance that could mean there are consequences for saying no. And also if they do say no don't assault them. Unfortunately, as a man, you probably have the ability to physically overpower most women if you want. Hopefully you don't want, but it's worth considering that you have that ability, and she may not know whether you're going to use it. For a shorter and funnier version of this line of thinking, I suggest this clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
• beedogs 9y ago
  People sometimes ask me why I think Silicon Valley should be razed and the earth salted once the rubble is cleared. This thread and the people in it are a great example of why.
• andypi 9y ago
  Thanks for being brave enough to share this, and I feel sad you've had to be on the receiving end of this disgraceful behavior. However, I think the levels of appropriateness really doesn't go far enough. It still treats women, sex and relationships far too casually. So here is my suggestion instead - MEN LISTEN AND TAKE NOTICE： 1. If you like a girl, ask her on a date, face to face, or send some flowers. If she declines two or at most three times, give up. She's not into you. Leave it at that. 2. If she says yes to the date, get to know her, find out what makes her tick and how you can care for her. Find out if shes willing to let you kiss her, maybe after a few dates. 3. If things go well, you can propose. Ask her parents or close family members first for permission as far as you can. Think about how you can love, support, help your wife to grow as a person. Think about how you can make her happy and what responsibilities you will need to take on as a husband. 4. Get married. After that, start to talk about what your sex life will look like, what she feels comfortable with, and when even if you are married, make sure you understand that sometimes she won't want to have sex. Then, enjoy yourselves！ Anything less than that is not good enough. Leave off on the alcohol is probably a good idea too, you can easily get into trouble doing things you wouldn't dare to normally.
• beedogs 9y ago
  You're offended that someone said you can't just go grabbing people you want to have sex with at work? Good. Continue being offended.
  • dang 9y ago
    There's legitimate criticism to be made of that comment but taking the worst part of it, exaggerating that uncharitably, then doubling that and flinging it in outrage is the kind of cheap trick users need to avoid here, regardless of how righteous their cause. The blood sport of the internet is not welcome on HN; there are other places to play it. You have a long history of posting abrasively and indeed abusively to Hacker News. Even though we've cut you a ton of slack and given you more warnings than most, that path leads to getting banned, so please stop. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14693232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14693232 and marked it off-topic.
    • beedogs 9y ago
      My comment was hardly "abusive". And this is probably the second time in ten years that I've been called out for a comment I've made here, which is hardly a "ton of slack" or "more warnings than most." Not that it surprises me. I'll never forget this is the site that shadow-banned me for saying the world "needs more Snowdens".
      • dang 9y ago
        It's at least the fourth. But why did you need more than one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12216126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12216126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309353 > I'll never forget this is the site that shadow-banned me for saying the world "needs more Snowdens". I call this kind of comment the "linkless martyr": the romantic tale of a noble freethinker cruelly repressed by the mods, supplying full interpretation for the reader yet mysteriously omitting any link that people could make up their own minds about. The idea that we ever banned an HN user for Snowden advocacy is silly. More seriously, you've posted so many genuinely nasty comments to this site, and we'd really appreciate it if you'd stop. It's doable. Other people have done it before you (I'm one).
• QuadrupleA 9y ago
  Good article - at first I was wary because of vagueness in the first few paragraphs, terms like "inappropriateness", "sexual harassment", "non-consensual sexual advances" etc. that are flung around so freely nowadays yet so open to interpretation, and which often go viral and get people fired. But in fact that was the point - that the devil's in the details and specifics really help. And the specifics in her case were clearly not cool. Kudos for putting them out there.
• QuadrupleA 9y ago
  The mass flagging / censoring of comments people disagree with below seems a little petty, I'm curious what the original posts are. I'd rather hear a dumb opinion and make my own choice.
  • crispytx 9y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out QuadrupleA.
  • dang 9y ago
    Anybody who wants to can see all the original posts by setting 'showdead' to 'yes' in their profile. Outright deletion of comments (or comment text) is comparatively rare and always done by authors themselves.
    • QuadrupleA 9y ago
      Thanks, didn't know about that feature.
  • gizmo686 9y ago
    In your profile settings you can set showdead to true.
  • nnfy 9y ago
    I had the gaul to cite personal experience as reason to legitamitely question the narrative, as there was something I didn't understand. Rather than take this as an opportunity to bring someone onto their side, I was met with a barrage of down votes and flaggers for doubting the wrong narrative. This kind of community censorship hinders progress.
    • novia 9y ago
      If I recall correctly, I responded to your comment before it was flagged. Did my comment help you understand at all? You seemed like you were asking in good faith, unlike a lot of other commenters in here, so I tried to legitimately engage you. But you never responded to my comment to let me know if I missed the mark or not.
• monfrere 9y ago
  I have experienced similarly persistent (or arguably even more persistent) unwanted sexual advances from other men, but I certainly didn't feel "assaulted". As a socially clueless gay man, I was hoping someone could help elucidate the most problematic parts of McClure's behavior here. The two factors that stand out for me are 1) McClure controlled the funding of the agency Yeoh was heading, so he was in a position of power 2) McClure is a man and Yeoh is a woman, so McClure can be assumed to be more physically imposing Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's behavior inappropriate? In any other context, I would consider asking someone something a third time after two "no"s to be an example of annoying badgering, but not necessarily harassment.
  • pvg 9y ago
    Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's behavior inappropriate? No, it would not be, at all. "At this point, I led him to the door and told him he needs to leave. On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me,"
    • monfrere 9y ago
      I don't know if anyone will believe me that I'm asking in good faith. But I still think that sentence, as written, could describe a wide range of situations. If it went like: A: Firmly: "You need to leave. Now." B: Shoves A's body multiple times until she is in the opposite corner of the room. Presses his lips to her face without hesitation. I would be mad as A. But if the scenario went more like: A: "I'm tired and it's late. You really gotta go, sorry." (A and B walk to the door. There is a sofa by the door.) B: Leans body toward A's. A: Takes a step back. Is now up against the sofa and the wall. B: Puts hand on A's shoulder and leans in slowly for a kiss. A: Refuses kiss. Here as person A I would simply brush B off as an aggressive suitor, unless the two aggravating circumstances I mentioned above were in play. Please tell me if that is unfair.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
• laurentoget 9y ago
  There is one point i am curious nobody mentions. If we do not want companies run like fraternity houses, how about not hiring actual fraternity alumni as executives?
• avenoir 9y ago
  We have half of the comments here trying to figure out what "sexual harassment" actually entails which makes a pretty darn good point in my opinion - people get triggered in different ways. This could be anything from an actual sexual advance to a poorly placed bad joke or a simple misunderstanding due to inability to read social cues. Some employers, usually large corps, blur the lines even more by allowing and even encouraging dating co-workers which presents a whole different perspective on this issue. Bottom line is it's a grey area and I don't really see how we fight this by improving incident reporting. I think if anything it would just make interacting with female co-workers terrifying (it already is to some extent if you're a male). I think this is a social issue and there has to be a mind shift of some sort in order to combat this. Maybe even taking this to schools and teaching kids workplace etiquette.
• siliconc0w 9y ago
  Not defending McClure but it's worth noting sexual assault and 'unwanted touching' are different problems that require different solutions. Any classification system used here should probably differentiate the two. When you combine them you suggest they're the same which does a disservice to those who have been sexually assaulted (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ). The low-fidelity of language here confuses people which then confuses statistics which leads to ineffective policy. I do think there is a possible SAAS app here for employees to report these incidents in a confidential way and to help shape the culture by providing an immediate notification to the McClure-types that their behavior is both being tracked and isn't going to be tolerated. This would promote immediate action on the part of the company instead of needing a dozen or so claims, a viral blog post, and or a nytimes article before action is taken.
  • rectang 9y ago
    > (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ). That's not the definition of "sexual assault". It varies by jurisdiction, and has been discussed extensively elsethread. "Unwanted touching" and "sexual assault" overlap. More important than anatomy is consent.
    • siliconc0w 9y ago
      It's the definition in California. See penal code 243.4 By blurring the lines you contribute to the problem - the author's entire goal in reliving and blogging her experience is that the details matter and we need a sensible framework to define and understand these issues or we can't address them.
      • rectang 9y ago
        Thanks for the statutory reference. I decided to research this more closely, and looked into several specific definitions. The most widely known (and the one I'd already seen) is the Justice Department's: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. However, the DOJ reference is not a statute. The other state statutes I looked at (New York, Washington, Delaware, Texas) seem to define "[aggravated/unlawful] [sexual/intimate] [assault/abuse/contact] similarly to California, with "intimate parts" enumerated. So, backing someone into a corner and forcibly attempting to kiss them might not bring a sexual assault charge unless accompanied by groping. Nevertheless, such actions can still result in charges of battery or false imprisonment. I agree that we need clearer collective understanding of the issues involved. However, the main concern remains consent. It's not "kisses OK, groping not OK" -- coerced intimacy is always problematic because it is coerced, no matter which statutory lines are crossed.
• faizmokhtar 9y ago
  Thanks Cheryl for sharing your story and thanks for contributing a lot to Malaysian startup scenes.
• morgante 9y ago
  This is a really great post, both in the courage it took to write and the logical analysis it provides. I have to provide a bit of mea culpa here. When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line of flirting which went overboard (to an unacceptable but understandable level). It's much worse than that. This is undoubtably sexual harassment and those differences/nuances matter. All I can say is that I'm sorry I didn't believe it was more serious when first reported. I know it's difficult, but I wish more women had the courage to come forward with full stories so we could more accurately judge the context and actions involved (ex. with other VCs, like Chris Sacca).
  • hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    > When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line of flirting which went overboard. "Flirting which goes overboard" is perhaps understandable from a co-worker or peer. It is absolutely, 100% an abuse of power when a VC does it to a potential investee. Imagine it from the woman's point of view. Suppose you had an idea you worked long and hard on, and then when you present it to a VC, he starts flirting with you? What do you do? Are you worried that spurning his advances will jeopardize your potential funding? Worse, it has to be incredibly demoralizing to want to be treated in the basis of your accomplishments but then know the VC is judging you through the primary lens of sex.
    • morgante 9y ago
      I didn't say it was okay or acceptable, but I had a much easier time imagining how a powerful VC ends up making a woman uncomfortable through flirting than full-on sexual assault. Like I said, that was my fault. This is a lot more serious than I first realized when stories surfaced.
• Zikes 9y ago
  Every time I get flagged for saying something reasonable but unpopular, I get so frustrated I just put my HN account away for weeks or months. I want to participate in tolerant, reasoned, actionable, fair discussions, especially when they're regarding the industry I'm trying to make a career in. HN is not the place for that discussion. Sure, the discussion will happen here. Things will happen. But it won't be tolerant, reasonable, or fair. That scares me. It scares me to think that the people in this thread are the ones that will be leading those discussions. Just ban me now. This is my third request, and I'm 100% certain. Until the knee-jerk flag censoring feature is removed, I never want to participate in a discussion on this site again, and I want to remove any further temptation to think that fact will change.
  • dang 9y ago
    This is like the sixth thing you've posted about this. At this point you're going on tilt. I'm happy to respond to you as soon as there's time. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14693838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14693838 and marked it off-topic.
  • DanBC 9y ago
    > Just ban me now. Mods should honour these requests, because not doing so leads to bad things. But until they do, you can set noprocast to a large number and then scramble your password.
    • Zikes 9y ago
      I may be tilted, but I don't intend to intentionally break the site rules just to force a ban. It'd just undermine the point I'm trying to make about wanting to have a fair and reasonable discussion.
      • DanBC 9y ago
        Setting noprocast and scrambling your password are not breaking site rules.
• michaelmrose 9y ago
  The obvious answer to avoiding workplace issues seems to be never mix business with pleasure. If the person who you proposition only has to consider the singular question of whether or not they are interested in you their decision will be natural and unforced. Anyone in a workplace has to constantly consider how this interaction will help or harm future prospects and even if no power differential exists may feel pressured. Many people are weak and may feel dissatisfied or put upon, many are shitty at expressing themselves, asserting themselves, or even at analyzing their own feelings. Then people have to work together after inevitably some of those interactions go bad. People express this issue as its some complex minefield. It's easy. Just don't do it. Get a hobby and meet people there. Go to work do whatever you are paid to do and find romance on your own time.
  • guildwriter 9y ago
    Due to the diversity of human preference and desire, I don't think that's a realistic course of action for a broad swath of humanity. People are going to be attracted to each other irregardless of principle. In fact, you could even argue that by pushing this sort of relationship towards the forbidden or taboo, it highlights the appeal. When people are going to spend hours and hours of time together, there's no helping the fact that feelings are going to happen eventually. It's also not hard to conceive of a person who wants a power relationship with a strong, motivated, and ambitious person. That being said, where are you likely to meet someone who is grinding out the hours to reach success? None of this is to say your proposed approach is invalid. It's an approach that works for some people. I just don't think it's realistic to expect that it's going to be widely followed. As this article notes: "Workplace romances are commonplace. Statistics indicate that anywhere from 40-47% of employees surveyed had been involved in a workplace romance. Beyond the 47% involved, about 20% indicated they were receptive to an office romance." https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-dating/201306/workplace-romance-motives https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-dating/20...
• Mz 9y ago
  I will note a pattern I have noticed: In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get." The problem for women with careers is that walking away entirely from a powerful man would mean walking away from all kinds of professional settings where she is likely to run into him. Cutting him out of her life entirely would be career suicide. The one message we really need to get powerful men to get is this: Working women are talking to you at all for the exact same reason working men are talking to you. And it isn't because they think you are hot. They are trying to make a business deal or further a career goal, not fulfill your wildest fantasies. I think this is why so many men persist in saying things like "I just misread the situation." And we will keep hearing that until it is the cultural norm for men to assume that women they work with are there to work, and that's it.
  • StevePerkins 9y ago
    A good point, but a grossly over-generalized one. Men "not taking no for an answer" after rejection is the exception, not the general norm, even if it's over represented in the VC scandal. That's why it's a scandal.
    • Mz 9y ago
      I think you are misunderstanding my remarks in some way. Nowhere did I use the phrase "not taking no for an answer." I am not talking about normal situations where it is possible for clear, unambiguous communication to take place. I am talking about a gray zone that makes it inherently challenging. I have written about this before: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zone.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zon... And I am saying we need to work at fostering a culture where people in power default to an assumption that if there is any doubt, they need to err on the side of assuming "This is about business, not romance. Period." Because my firsthand experience and pieces like the one under discussion agree that, all too often, a woman just can't seem to adequately signal "romance is NOT on the table here" and also remain on good working terms with a man in power. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. It has nothing to do with asserting that men don't take no for an answer.
• newtem0 9y ago
  Not really a big deal to be honest. Innapropriate but not enough for a scandal. She was inebriated and she gracefully fails to mention if he was, and he was probably. Its not exactly the next cosby is it?
• gadders 9y ago
  As YC has a very strong policy in regards to sexual harrassment, are these incidents going to affect how they deal with other VCs (either individuals or companies)?
• unholywars 9y ago
  She's an ambitious girl. You have to wonder how much of this is just piling on the public flogging to get more attention for herself?
• ebfd 9y ago
  >Level B. Direct Sexual Propositions or Seductive Behavior >Sexual invitations like “would you consider sleeping with me or come to my hotel room, etc” I was under the impression that men need to obtain explicit, clear consent before trying to initiate a romantic interaction. "Would you consider sleeping with me" is what I was taught that I need to say.
• skc 9y ago
  I'm male and I find it so bizarre that men behave in this manner. But it happens so often that I wonder sometimes if I'm the one who is not normal. I love women. I am attracted to them constantly. But the thought of making sexual advances towards them when I have not received any sign of interest beyond friendship or business etc, repulses me. How hard can it be to just be nice. As men we really need to do better.
  • Gigablah 9y ago
    A lot of the responses in this comment section have been eye-opening, and not in a good way.
  • e40 9y ago
    I have felt this way my whole life. I'm just starting to think the same, that I'm the abnormal one. I had assumed that we, as a society, were on the downhill side of women's equality. Then Sessions became the AG and I watched women testifying in front of Congress treated like it was 1950. I think all that progress we made over the last 50 years was partly in my head.
  • barrkel 9y ago
    FWIW, I've never noticed signs of interest from the opposite sex; it was only after the fact, when I talked about an odd occurrence, or someone acting unusually, that people told me that it was probably a sign of interest. I didn't start a relationship until I started making much more active moves; that took many years. My point being, I don't think it's that unusual for many men to simply not notice these signs you find obvious. To this day I can't tell. I'd be having dinner at a restaurant with my parents and my father would tell me that the waitress was unsuccessfully trying to flirt with me! (I mean this as no defense of Dave. My fault is never noticing and never acting when it's welcome; I have never acted without verbal or written invitation. It took my current partner sending me a text saying that she was worried I wasn't into her, before I knew I could move further.)
• qubex 9y ago
  > By the way: any analysis on how the victim of the abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim-blaming, even if you add a disclaimer claiming otherwise. No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has any right to shout me down or shut me up. ”I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” — Richard Feynman
  • gizmo 9y ago
    Wait, so you have the right to raise every issue you wish but I don't have the right voice my disapproval or attach a negative label to what you say? The hypocrisy should make your head spin. Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a thread about sexual harassment, just like some comments are inappropriate at a funeral.
    • hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
      You are completely mischaracterizing qubex's point. The objection is not that you are pointing out a specific statement is victim blaming, it's that you are painting an entire topic as "off limits" by trying to label anyone who brings up the topic, however respectfully and with a view toward future prevention, as a "victim blamer." Hacker News is one of the last places in the internet where I think there is (comparatively) a minimum of tribalism in discourse. What qubex and I are pushing back against is the idea is branding anyone who brings up this topic (or any topic, really) as essentially "the enemy" regardless of their intent.
      • gizmo 9y ago
        Sexism is off-limits, and victim blaming is sexist and so as a consequence off-limits. What is and what isn't victim blaming is well-defined: I'm not making this up as I go along. So this isn't about me or my tribe. I don't blame you or consider you "the enemy". Your understanding of victim blaming is simply wrong, and I encourage you to look it up on Google if you don't believe me.
• whitemale 9y ago
  Preamble: I am not defending the guy mentioned in the article, his only defence could be that he was drunk(not good enough imho). What about when at a nightclub? What about women who rely on easily misinterpret-able body language? What if two people have totally consensual intercourse where one has more power over the other one? The issue I take here is that people pretend like the issue is black and white, while it's incredibly nuanced. The other issue is that when gender comes into play, people become emotional, I would love to talk about this topic as if instead of sex the guy demanded money from the women in exchange for the deal, then I feel we could have a much more rational conversation about this.