201–210 of 484 posts
One of the girls interviewed on Startup Podcast mentioned that a VC propositioned her; like these girls she was Asian. I wonder if this guy is the same alleged pervert?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some value in being able to talk bluntly with other men. And I'm not sure it's much worse than what I observed groups of women talking about.
There's not really any value in having that sort of chat with anyone in a professional context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.
What makes you think that the women liked him, or that he thought they liked him? They were pitching to him, that's a business transaction. He himself said he leveraged a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, and the linked article mentions groping and harassment with unwanted sexual propositions. Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possib…
I realize this isn't a legal matter at this point but I'm speaking of the principle(s) on which those features are based.
It almost always seems to become a case of "you're either with us or you're against us," so let's try to steer clear of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad part to me is that this is just the part of the iceberg that is visible above the surface. I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not naming names or specific details to protect anonymity) who have experienced repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other. That's not as egregious as groping (one of the accusations in this article), but that's still sexual…
> repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single.
Last weekend she received an unsolicited, nearly naked photo from the same male co-worker. Needless to say, he is no longer at the company.
This is sad on two counts. First, it's sad that my relative felt she couldn't report because she thought it would harm her career. It sickens me to say this, but maybe she was right. Maybe it would have harmed her career.
Second, and I've seen this before, she had to endure further harassment until he really escalated so she could report something significant enough that she felt it wouldn't harm her credibility.
Though we're discussing this through the lens of the tech industry, the most horrifying thing of all is that this isn't even a problem that's unique to tech.
It's pervasive. Still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.
What makes you think that the women liked him, or that he thought they liked him? They were pitching to him, that's a business transaction. He himself said he leveraged a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, and the linked article mentions groping and harassment with unwanted sexual propositions. Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possib…
He looks pretty attractive - maybe there were other cases were the women were also attracted to him.
Maybe women also unconsciously flirted to make him more likely to give him money, and he misinterpreted. (No, women would never do that - they would never take advantage of their attractiveness, whereas men will usually take advantage of their "position of power", right?).
Pressuring women for sex is not generally that much fun, much better if they are actually into you. I would expect only a low number of psychopaths would enjoy sex with a woman who isn't into it. Therefore it seems more likely he expected them to be into it.
It seems pretty normal to develop attraction after a while of intensive talking.
What makes you think my "justification" is more far-fetched than your interpretation? Your prejudice that in general, "men are pigs"?
In general, people want to feel good - so he may have convinced himself that the women were into him.
Edit: well I am not trolling, but HN doesn't want me to comment further (as in, it doesn't allow me to). I think as long as people are not willing to have a honest discussion about the issue, and rather cling to their prejudices, it will never change. But as you wish, I will go away. Enjoy your circle-jerking.
Really glad to see people like this getting called out. Dealing with sexual harassment/assault from someone in power is the last thing you want as a female founder - you have a million other things you need to do to keep your startup afloat, and you don't want to rock the boat if it affects your likelihood of being funded. Feels like the valley is slowly but surely changing. And yes, I recognize that this hasn't been…
The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.
This type of behavior is about boundaries. Boundaries are about power.
His behavior crossed what our culture generally says are the boundaries of a professional situation. That's what makes it inappropriate; it doesn't matter what he believed.
It's totally acceptable to meet someone in a social situation and, after a bit of due diligence, it's totally acceptable to ask them out.
But that's not what this was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am one of the three women who went on the record: Niniane Wang. I'm one of the "she-said"s. I have nothing to gain from this. I am not suing. I'm founder & CEO of a Greylock-funded startup. Thankfully Greylock has come out in full support, but I didn't know that beforehand and was very nervous when I decided to do the article. The only way that any reporter would agree to publish was if I used my real name. I knew…
Sorry, I didn't mean to cast doubts. All I meant was that we should reserve judgement. In this case, it sounds pretty clear-cut, but the point was about future cases that may not be so straightforward. I can only imagine how stressful a situation like this can be, so I certainly didn't mean to increase it. Best of luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I read that, but is it necessary to be publicly on the record? Couldn't the information be privately confirmed, protecting the women from retaliation and still allowing the case/accusation to move forward? It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.
I am one of the three women who went on the record with my name: Niniane Wang. I initially asked to be anonymous, but no reporter would publish unless they had named sources. I knew that Justin was continuing to harass women. Using my name was the only way to stop him. In other words, yes, it was necessary to be publicly on the record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money.
>> The accusations can be true, and at the same time it seems possible that the VC didn't take advantage of his "position of power", but genuinely believed the women liked him for his looks and personality, not because they needed his money. This type of behavior is about boundaries. Boundaries are about power. His behavior crossed what our culture generally says are the boundaries of a professional situation. That's…
I also reject the notion of "position of power" just because he is a VC. Nobody is forced to take his money. You could just as well say the applying women are in a position of power because the VC desperately needs somebody to invest in. I guess a startup should avoid seeking investments where the investor is "in a position of power", anyway.
I am also not justifying his behavior, obviously he made mistakes. But I reject the immediate interpretation of "man abusing his power to pressure women into sex".
The "boundaries" talk is also not really helpful - at some point, somebody has to make a move. If their estimate of the situation is correct, they are not "crossing boundaries". Otherwise they are crossing boundaries and need to withdraw.
Grabbing a knee under the table is of course not a good first move, but we might be missing context.
Really glad to see people like this getting called out. Dealing with sexual harassment/assault from someone in power is the last thing you want as a female founder - you have a million other things you need to do to keep your startup afloat, and you don't want to rock the boat if it affects your likelihood of being funded. Feels like the valley is slowly but surely changing. And yes, I recognize that this hasn't been…
The sad part to me is that this is just the part of the iceberg that is visible above the surface. I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not naming names or specific details to protect anonymity) who have experienced repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other. That's not as egregious as groping (one of the accusations in this article), but that's still sexual…
IANAL, but legally it's not sexual harassment because they don't work at the same company.
Something is only sexual harassment in two cases: 1) a supervisor offers something to a subordinate in exchange for sexual favors 2) a company is found to have created a hostile work environment. In both cases it's the company that's liable, not the person or people doing the harassment. There may be some extra rules that exist in individual states, but this is the general idea.
Certainly it's bad behavior, but because there isn't any real power imbalance between entrepreneurs and VCs the problem can mostly be dealt with socially (as has happened here) rather than being a situation that requires some specific legal intervention. (Or at least that's the general legal theory.)