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

Post by justonepost » Sat, Jun 24, 2017, 2:04 AM UTC

munchbunny wrote: post #102

jmcgough wrote: post #32

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…

Post by zaphar » Sat, Jun 24, 2017, 2:08 AM UTC

staticautomatic wrote: post #266

acid__ wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but the premise (of both my scenario and Justin's apology) is that his eyes are now open.

You're asking how the apology would sound coming from someone who understood what he had done?

Post by URSpider94 » Sat, Jun 24, 2017, 2:17 AM UTC

braveo wrote: post #268

fishtoaster wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key word is "repeated." Approaching someone is allowed. Repeatedly approaching them after they tell you know is not.

that's still not sexual harassment, there are plenty of stories of men chasing women and eventually marrying them. human sexuality isn't that cut and dried.

Post by V-eHGsd_ » Sat, Jun 24, 2017, 2:20 AM UTC

jikeo wrote: post #270

Bakary wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think this is the real thought process behind things like these, even though it sounds a little cheeky.

They said on hacker news. Personally I don't really see the problem. If you want to argue for a different state of things after some event, "post" seem like the correct word. Just like you would say "post war period". You might of course think that the statement itself is pretentious. But at least they argue their case, i.e the importance of her actions, in the article.

Post by rectang » Sat, Jun 24, 2017, 2:21 AM 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.