6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

Post by dfabulich » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 11:13 PM UTC

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #215

Alex3917 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's still sexual harassment by the letter of the law and slimy as hell every other way. 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 li…

What? Anyone can be sexually harassed by anyone else, workplace has nothing to do with it. Sexual harassment in the workplace is egregious because the conflict of interests. E.g. my boss harasses me, but if I complain I jeopardize my livelihood.

Post by nickrivadeneira » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 11:13 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #211

anothercomment wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, his initial statement sounds like that (like he is genuinely shocked that he is part of the problem after all). His updated statement might reflect his realization of the reality of what went down. 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, wome…

Whether you mean to or not you're trolling this thread hard. Please stop now.

Post by munchbunny » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 11:22 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #198

erikpukinskis wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think they are using a euphemism for essentially saying "no" to sex/relations.

Post by FireBeyond » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 11:24 PM UTC

mothers wrote: post #72

jellicle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "investigation" are you planning to wait for? Who's doing it? What URL will the final report be published at? Do you apply this standard in other areas? If someone tells you they had chicken for lunch, do you say, "Hold on, let's wait for the investigation to determine what you actually had for lunch"? Or if six people told you they had chicken for lunch?

the difference is that no one is harmed in this situation.

Post by nicholasjbs » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 11:27 PM UTC

niniane wrote: post #43

_m8fo wrote: post #15

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.