13 ms·

The details are stunning. Nearly 20% of responders reported sexual coercion or quid-pro-quo. Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone, th

by runako 8y ago

The details are stunning. Nearly 20% of responders reported sexual coercion or quid-pro-quo. Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone, the actual number is obviously higher. This is happening at the top startup accelerator in the world, where there is likely to be more scrutiny than elsewhere. (The problem is likely worse in other places.) Kudos on publishing this research, great work.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
> Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone, the actual number is obviously higher. I don't see any specifics on the number reported vs the number that experienced harassment, just the number of respondents who experienced it. Where is that in the article?
- runako 8y ago
  Slight misread of the post, see my response to @nailer in a sibling comment. The broad conclusion is unchanged.
nailer 8y ago
You're using 'reported' in two different contexts, and drawing an odd conclusion as a result From your comment: > Nearly 20% of responders reported sexual coercion or quid-pro-quo From the survey: >> 88 YC female founders completed the survey >> 19 founders experienced one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs: Yes, 19/88 of founders surveyed stated they had been harassed to YC as part of the survey. From your comment: > Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone The reporting here is between the founder and authorities, other founders, other VCs, in context of the incident and not the survey. From the survey: >> When founders did report, their main reason was to protect others: “I wanted to make sure that other founders funded by this VC would NOT be in contact with this person, so I shared.” I'm not assuming any malice on your part, just a misreading of the survey results.
- runako 8y ago
  Legit catch. I did struggle a bit with the wording of the post. I think it's still fair (based on my read and yours) to say that the survey results represent a lower bound, which is the broader conclusion I drew. I don't think anyone is suggesting that 100% of instances of bad behavior were surfaced by this survey, so the actual number will be higher.
  - kilburn 8y ago
    > I don't think anyone is suggesting that 100% of instances of bad behavior were surfaced by this survey, so the actual number will be higher. In absolute terms it is clear that it's a lower bound. In percentage we cannot say because as stated in the footnote: > Callisto chose to send the survey to the 125 founders [of 384] who signed up for the YC female founder email list. It can be argued that being harassed and subscribing to that list may be correlated. Hence, the percentage of harassed women on that list may be higher than in the general population of female founders. Also, someone may argue that women who were actually harassed are probably more involved in these matters, and hence more likely to respond to such surveys. They got 88 responses out of 125 reach-outs (70%) so there's also the possibility most of that other 30% were not harassed. Therefore, the true lower-bound in percentage terms would be 19 (that we know were harassed) of 384 (total population), around 5%. As the name implies, this is just a lower bound. The equivalent upper bound would be 69 (that we know were not harassed) of 384 (total), setting it at 82%. The real number lies somewhere inbetween. Extrapolating "40% of respondents" to "40% of the population" is debatable, and claiming that is a lower bound would be just wrong.
    - runako 8y ago
      >> the true lower-bound in percentage terms would be 19 (that we know were harassed) of 384 (total population), around 5%. You're mixing a population about which you can make an inference (survey participants) with a population about which you cannot (people who were not even contacted about the survey). The resulting percentage is essentially meaningless.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 8y ago
> The details are stunning. Nearly 20% of responders reported sexual coercion or quid-pro-quo. Doesn't surprise me. A couple years ago my co-founder and I were at a startup event, and an investor came up to another founder next to us and made a comment like, "Oh, you're way too hot to be a startup founder, what are you doing here?" It's a tricky problem to really make sense of though just because investors are so diverse. You've got things like: - People who got an MBA and for whom investing is their actual career. - Founders who exited their own startup and now it's their hobby or second career. - People who made a couple million dollars as doctors or lawyers and are now taking it up as a hobby in their 50s. - People who made tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from crypto or whatever in their early 20s and have now lost all touch with reality. - People who quietly manage family offices who occasionally add a startup to their portfolio. Not that it necessarily matters from the founder's perspective. But it's just a very different problem than addressing sexual harassment in tech companies, because you have a mix of people doing it as a career and people doing it for completely different reasons.
- glibgil 8y ago
  > It's a tricky problem to really make sense of though just because investors are so diverse Are you suggesting that traditional VCs and traditional tech leaders are less rapey than the list above? That seems like wishful thinking! Meta: these downvotes are wild. -4 at present. Someone makes a bullshit, hand wringing, concern trolling comment about how this is a "tricky problem" and that it cannot be pinned on VCs and tech leaders because of schlocky retired doctors and bitcoin barons. The statistics don't back that up as cited by a sibling commenter. What's funny about downvotes like this is that it's not even a social deterrent. I can get +4 for a one word comment as long as it's funny, but if I callout someone for getting the vapors and saying "not all men" I get wild downvotes
  - scoggs 8y ago
    I think they might mean nailing specific people down to a tech company specifically. I could be wrong, though.
- moorhosj 8y ago
duxup 8y ago
The scale at which this happens and yet I feel like I've never seen it is pretty shocking to me. To be clear I'm not denying it, it's just amazing to me that this behavior is that frequent or common and presumably because I'm a guy, i'm not exposed to it.
- GhostVII 8y ago
  If it is only one or two incidents per person, and only 20% of women experience it, I don't think it is very surprising that you wouldn't see it.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Yeah I guess the number of total "events" can be pretty small. Just amazing that to me something that would seem totally out of place at work or seem "crazy" to have happen... a lot of people experience in the same workplaces I'm in.
    - dreamling 8y ago
      and then you carry the possibility of more possible events with you into every interaction. You have to become hyper-vigilant for even average workdays. The 'event' is more than the time it takes to happen, it colors the rest of your interactions with a company. (Do the other people know? do they condone? Who is safe? if the initial event was minor, will that person escalate?) exhausting.
    - itronitron 8y ago
      this is both a reason for and against working at the same company as your spouse/partner, you get to hear all the fucked up shit going on in another part of the organization
- Ensorceled 8y ago
  I was coming out of the subway with my GF and some guy came up to her and threatened a pretty violent act. I said "What did you just say?" and the guy, realizing she was with someone, turned a bolted. I was angry but my GF just shrugged and said, "this happens all the time in Yorkville". You don't see it because predators don't act out if there are other men around.
nrdgrl 8y ago
I think just about any woman knows, 20% is very low (and unlikely). From my own personal experience I'd be shocked if it wasn't clover to 60%.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
LyndsySimon 8y ago
> Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone, the actual number is obviously higher. I don't think you can assume that. I think it's very likely that the number is higher, but it's also possible that it's lower - that women who have experienced harassment are more likely to complete a survey on the topic than women who have not.
- beat 8y ago
  Are they? The results state that fear of retaliation is a big driver in non-reporting, even in this context.
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    I did not assert that they were, only that it is possible.
  - y2kenny 8y ago
    But this survey is anonymous no? How does fear of retaliation affect results in anonymous survey?
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      "I was working on (unique, highly identifiable thing) when (world's foremost expert that all insiders can immediately identify) suggested (fetish most insiders know he has)" turns into "Um, no comment." The survey is of 88 YC female founders from a pool of 125 people on a particular list. This already makes the list fairly small and on the world stage and in the public eye. If you really need it to remain quiet, your policy of saying nothing needs to be absolute.
      - y2kenny 8y ago
        They didn't publish the questions for this survey but I would imagine this survey did not require answer detail enough to be identifiable at any level. Do you disagree that an anonymous survey with yes/no answer is sufficiently anonymous? Perhaps folks from Callisto can comment further.
roenxi 8y ago
I'd prefer to see a bit more of a break up at the low-end of the scale. > "18 experienced unwanted sexual overtures or sexual badgering" Badgering is beyond the pale, "unwanted sexual overtures" are unwelcome but I don't see how they are ever going away; if men don't make a first sexual overture there aren't going to be a lot of men who end up having sex. Some of those overtures are going to be unwanted, but the men basically have to try to find out. Things like Tinder where you can filter for "interested only" are pretty much a new phenomenon and havn't really had time to influence the culture of anyone aged over 30. Anyway, I'd like to know how persistent these "unwanted sexual overture" is before it is reported in the survey as harassment. Minor point in a larger picture.
- sgarman 8y ago
  Even if I did agree with your core argument (I don't) how is a VC meeting the appropriate time and place for that?
- glangdale 8y ago
  Ummmn, you appear to have missed the bit where this "unwanted sexual overture" was put in context i.e. "one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs" Here's an amazingly novel idea: maybe angels and VCs who are lonely should have social lives where they can make sexual overtures? Making sexual overtures in a professional context where you hold a position of power (i.e. you are a angel/VC and you're making overtures to a female founder) is grossly unprofessional regardless of whether they are persistent.
  - BigJono 8y ago
    Here's a novel idea. Most founders work long hours. Their work is their life (for the most part). I wasn't aware you had to take a vow of celibacy to start a company... Also 'inappropriate incidents' is completely undefined.
    - rainonmoon 8y ago
      That seems like a problem with the culture that women shouldn't have to bear the consequences of.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
Indeed. What I find shocking is how many people still delude themselves that this stuff isn't ubiquitous across the industry. 20% experienced sexual coercion. Think about how many more experience "just" sexual harassment, misogyny, mistreatment, etc. How many instances of being mistreated does it take to affect your career growth? How many instances does it take to impact your perception of the industry as a whole and your desire to stay working in it? To what degree you keep a list of safe and unsafe places to work, safe and unsafe opportunities for you, and how much that curtails your growth potential? How many stories from other coworkers about worse abuses (like sexual coercion) does it take to erode any belief in the goodness of your industry whatsoever and make you feel like you are walking around with a target on your back just waiting until it happens to you? This is why the industry finds retention and promotion of women so difficult, because it treats them horribly and like all rational people they have a tendency to leave situations that are harmful to them. It doesn't take a huge number of bad actors for these things to affect lots (or even most) women, but it does require organizations (HR, management, etc.) consistently looking the other way and failing to take action, it does require the majority of guys just bumbling around thinking these problems are super rare instead of universal.
sidlls 8y ago
Doesn't surprise me at all. The company I work for had a similar survey internally and over 20% of the respondents indicated some level of harassment or coercion (fewer than 20% reported coercion or quid-pro-quo). This is a company that works hard at not having that sort of thing, being inclusive and diverse, etc. and has a reputation in the community as being one of the better places to work as far as gender and racial diversity is concerned.

by runako 8y ago

castlecrasher2 8y ago

> Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone, the actual number is obviously higher. I don't see any specifics on the number reported vs the number that experienced harassment, just the number of respondents who experienced it. Where is that in the article?

runako 8y ago
Slight misread of the post, see my response to @nailer in a sibling comment. The broad conclusion is unchanged.

nailer 8y ago

You're using 'reported' in two different contexts, and drawing an odd conclusion as a result From your comment: > Nearly 20% of responders reported sexual coercion or quid-pro-quo From the survey: >> 88 YC female founders completed the survey >> 19 founders experienced one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs: Yes, 19/88 of founders surveyed stated they had been harassed to YC as part of the survey. From your comment: > Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone The reporting here is between the founder and authorities, other founders, other VCs, in context of the incident and not the survey. From the survey: >> When founders did report, their main reason was to protect others: “I wanted to make sure that other founders funded by this VC would NOT be in contact with this person, so I shared.” I'm not assuming any malice on your part, just a misreading of the survey results.

runako 8y ago
Legit catch. I did struggle a bit with the wording of the post. I think it's still fair (based on my read and yours) to say that the survey results represent a lower bound, which is the broader conclusion I drew. I don't think anyone is suggesting that 100% of instances of bad behavior were surfaced by this survey, so the actual number will be higher.
- kilburn 8y ago
  > I don't think anyone is suggesting that 100% of instances of bad behavior were surfaced by this survey, so the actual number will be higher. In absolute terms it is clear that it's a lower bound. In percentage we cannot say because as stated in the footnote: > Callisto chose to send the survey to the 125 founders [of 384] who signed up for the YC female founder email list. It can be argued that being harassed and subscribing to that list may be correlated. Hence, the percentage of harassed women on that list may be higher than in the general population of female founders. Also, someone may argue that women who were actually harassed are probably more involved in these matters, and hence more likely to respond to such surveys. They got 88 responses out of 125 reach-outs (70%) so there's also the possibility most of that other 30% were not harassed. Therefore, the true lower-bound in percentage terms would be 19 (that we know were harassed) of 384 (total population), around 5%. As the name implies, this is just a lower bound. The equivalent upper bound would be 69 (that we know were not harassed) of 384 (total), setting it at 82%. The real number lies somewhere inbetween. Extrapolating "40% of respondents" to "40% of the population" is debatable, and claiming that is a lower bound would be just wrong.
  - runako 8y ago
    >> the true lower-bound in percentage terms would be 19 (that we know were harassed) of 384 (total population), around 5%. You're mixing a population about which you can make an inference (survey participants) with a population about which you cannot (people who were not even contacted about the survey). The resulting percentage is essentially meaningless.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Alex3917 8y ago

> The details are stunning. Nearly 20% of responders reported sexual coercion or quid-pro-quo. Doesn't surprise me. A couple years ago my co-founder and I were at a startup event, and an investor came up to another founder next to us and made a comment like, "Oh, you're way too hot to be a startup founder, what are you doing here?" It's a tricky problem to really make sense of though just because investors are so diverse. You've got things like: - People who got an MBA and for whom investing is their actual career. - Founders who exited their own startup and now it's their hobby or second career. - People who made a couple million dollars as doctors or lawyers and are now taking it up as a hobby in their 50s. - People who made tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from crypto or whatever in their early 20s and have now lost all touch with reality. - People who quietly manage family offices who occasionally add a startup to their portfolio. Not that it necessarily matters from the founder's perspective. But it's just a very different problem than addressing sexual harassment in tech companies, because you have a mix of people doing it as a career and people doing it for completely different reasons.

glibgil 8y ago
> It's a tricky problem to really make sense of though just because investors are so diverse Are you suggesting that traditional VCs and traditional tech leaders are less rapey than the list above? That seems like wishful thinking! Meta: these downvotes are wild. -4 at present. Someone makes a bullshit, hand wringing, concern trolling comment about how this is a "tricky problem" and that it cannot be pinned on VCs and tech leaders because of schlocky retired doctors and bitcoin barons. The statistics don't back that up as cited by a sibling commenter. What's funny about downvotes like this is that it's not even a social deterrent. I can get +4 for a one word comment as long as it's funny, but if I callout someone for getting the vapors and saying "not all men" I get wild downvotes
- scoggs 8y ago
  I think they might mean nailing specific people down to a tech company specifically. I could be wrong, though.
moorhosj 8y ago

duxup 8y ago

The scale at which this happens and yet I feel like I've never seen it is pretty shocking to me. To be clear I'm not denying it, it's just amazing to me that this behavior is that frequent or common and presumably because I'm a guy, i'm not exposed to it.

GhostVII 8y ago
If it is only one or two incidents per person, and only 20% of women experience it, I don't think it is very surprising that you wouldn't see it.
- duxup 8y ago
  Yeah I guess the number of total "events" can be pretty small. Just amazing that to me something that would seem totally out of place at work or seem "crazy" to have happen... a lot of people experience in the same workplaces I'm in.
  - dreamling 8y ago
    and then you carry the possibility of more possible events with you into every interaction. You have to become hyper-vigilant for even average workdays. The 'event' is more than the time it takes to happen, it colors the rest of your interactions with a company. (Do the other people know? do they condone? Who is safe? if the initial event was minor, will that person escalate?) exhausting.
  - itronitron 8y ago
    this is both a reason for and against working at the same company as your spouse/partner, you get to hear all the fucked up shit going on in another part of the organization
Ensorceled 8y ago
I was coming out of the subway with my GF and some guy came up to her and threatened a pretty violent act. I said "What did you just say?" and the guy, realizing she was with someone, turned a bolted. I was angry but my GF just shrugged and said, "this happens all the time in Yorkville". You don't see it because predators don't act out if there are other men around.

nrdgrl 8y ago

I think just about any woman knows, 20% is very low (and unlikely). From my own personal experience I'd be shocked if it wasn't clover to 60%.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

LyndsySimon 8y ago

> Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone, the actual number is obviously higher. I don't think you can assume that. I think it's very likely that the number is higher, but it's also possible that it's lower - that women who have experienced harassment are more likely to complete a survey on the topic than women who have not.

beat 8y ago
Are they? The results state that fear of retaliation is a big driver in non-reporting, even in this context.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  I did not assert that they were, only that it is possible.
- y2kenny 8y ago
  But this survey is anonymous no? How does fear of retaliation affect results in anonymous survey?
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    "I was working on (unique, highly identifiable thing) when (world's foremost expert that all insiders can immediately identify) suggested (fetish most insiders know he has)" turns into "Um, no comment." The survey is of 88 YC female founders from a pool of 125 people on a particular list. This already makes the list fairly small and on the world stage and in the public eye. If you really need it to remain quiet, your policy of saying nothing needs to be absolute.
    - y2kenny 8y ago
      They didn't publish the questions for this survey but I would imagine this survey did not require answer detail enough to be identifiable at any level. Do you disagree that an anonymous survey with yes/no answer is sufficiently anonymous? Perhaps folks from Callisto can comment further.

roenxi 8y ago

I'd prefer to see a bit more of a break up at the low-end of the scale. > "18 experienced unwanted sexual overtures or sexual badgering" Badgering is beyond the pale, "unwanted sexual overtures" are unwelcome but I don't see how they are ever going away; if men don't make a first sexual overture there aren't going to be a lot of men who end up having sex. Some of those overtures are going to be unwanted, but the men basically have to try to find out. Things like Tinder where you can filter for "interested only" are pretty much a new phenomenon and havn't really had time to influence the culture of anyone aged over 30. Anyway, I'd like to know how persistent these "unwanted sexual overture" is before it is reported in the survey as harassment. Minor point in a larger picture.

sgarman 8y ago
Even if I did agree with your core argument (I don't) how is a VC meeting the appropriate time and place for that?
glangdale 8y ago
Ummmn, you appear to have missed the bit where this "unwanted sexual overture" was put in context i.e. "one or more inappropriate incidents by angels or VCs" Here's an amazingly novel idea: maybe angels and VCs who are lonely should have social lives where they can make sexual overtures? Making sexual overtures in a professional context where you hold a position of power (i.e. you are a angel/VC and you're making overtures to a female founder) is grossly unprofessional regardless of whether they are persistent.
- BigJono 8y ago
  Here's a novel idea. Most founders work long hours. Their work is their life (for the most part). I wasn't aware you had to take a vow of celibacy to start a company... Also 'inappropriate incidents' is completely undefined.
  - rainonmoon 8y ago
    That seems like a problem with the culture that women shouldn't have to bear the consequences of.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

Indeed. What I find shocking is how many people still delude themselves that this stuff isn't ubiquitous across the industry. 20% experienced sexual coercion. Think about how many more experience "just" sexual harassment, misogyny, mistreatment, etc. How many instances of being mistreated does it take to affect your career growth? How many instances does it take to impact your perception of the industry as a whole and your desire to stay working in it? To what degree you keep a list of safe and unsafe places to work, safe and unsafe opportunities for you, and how much that curtails your growth potential? How many stories from other coworkers about worse abuses (like sexual coercion) does it take to erode any belief in the goodness of your industry whatsoever and make you feel like you are walking around with a target on your back just waiting until it happens to you? This is why the industry finds retention and promotion of women so difficult, because it treats them horribly and like all rational people they have a tendency to leave situations that are harmful to them. It doesn't take a huge number of bad actors for these things to affect lots (or even most) women, but it does require organizations (HR, management, etc.) consistently looking the other way and failing to take action, it does require the majority of guys just bumbling around thinking these problems are super rare instead of universal.

sidlls 8y ago

Doesn't surprise me at all. The company I work for had a similar survey internally and over 20% of the respondents indicated some level of harassment or coercion (fewer than 20% reported coercion or quid-pro-quo). This is a company that works hard at not having that sort of thing, being inclusive and diverse, etc. and has a reputation in the community as being one of the better places to work as far as gender and racial diversity is concerned.