Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

observer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 484 posts

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

#341

Post by jerengie »

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…

Although I agree with you that if it's definitely like the presumed victims say I just want to remember that often people are called out for base motives. Since I live in germany I remember the case of Kachelmann, who due to false claims of rape lost everything from his job to his freedom of a half years worth and much of his friends and family - because of a lie.

So for me this means that I wait for the judges to decide. Before he's found guilty it's nothing more than gossip to me, although this is a rather unpopular opinion I guess.

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

#342

Post by kybernetikos »

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.

I think you're talking about something different to the main thread here. Most people here are talking about a professional context where there is a significant power imbalance between the parties.

Context is important.

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

#343

Post by pbhjpbhj »

xenadu02 wrote: post #121
solotronics wrote: post #42

Serious question, does free speech apply in these situations? You have the unalienable right to speak your mind and some people may be offended but that is not illegal. I totally understand if you are employed by someone you can't easily get away if you are made uncomfortable but this is entirely a voluntary situation. Also, if you really think about it making something that makes someone uncomfortable illegal is wei…

The canonical example of the limits of free speech: You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, you can't run toward someone screaming, pull back like you're going to throw a punch, then claim innocence when charged with assault. There are numerous court cases that draw various lines. Courts have recognized people sometimes say "I'll kill you" but without any actual intent. They also recognize sometimes t…

[Responding to your comment in isolation.]

As you're talking about legal things I feel a degree more pedantry is needed. You can yell "fire!" but not without an expectation of subsequent deleterious consequences. You have the freedom to speak, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech.

>When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested. //

I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete.

>most likely explanation //

I imagine the most likely explanation was that he was attracted to them, they mirrored his attraction and it went on from there without any thought from him that they were doing it in order to win/not_lose business positioning.

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

#344

Post by DanBC »

jacquesm wrote: post #320
munchbunny wrote: post #102

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…

> 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. Why should that even be a factor? Unwanted is unwanted, whether they're in a committed relationship or not is not relevant at all.

"I have a partner" is just one way to tell someone their attention is unwanted.

Parent post included that because these threads are full of arseholes who say things like "he didn't know, why didn't she just tell him?"

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

#345

Post by coldtea »

jsjohnst wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the same time, we do need some kind of defense mechanism to make sure people are secure. Well, how about the law? > We can't just let everything slide because we're perpetually waiting for more evidence. But it's not 'sliding', it's going to court. And it doesn't concern us anyway -- it's not like we witnessed it in real life and didn't speak out.

At least one of the down votes you got was for the last sentence in your post. Stopping sexual assault should concern everyone!

>Stopping sexual assault should concern everyone!

Well, some downvotes should come your way for misattribution too then.

I didn't say that "Stopping sexual assault should not concern us" (or anything to that effect).

I said the case is of no concern to us. First, it's not our place to make judgements of guilt or innocence without knowing what transpired and not even knowing those people. Ee don't even know for sure whether it was actually sexual assault or not -- that's for the law to decide.

(Of course we might be suspicious of the law, or a specific court result, or the way a trial was conducted etc. But we are not even at that stage yet).

Plus, you're not stopping sexual assault by saying you are against it in an internet forum (and concerning an undecided case). Heck, even rapists would say they are "against sexual assault" in public.

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

#346

Post by coldtea »

kaitai wrote: post #127
coldtea wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the same time, we do need some kind of defense mechanism to make sure people are secure. Well, how about the law? > We can't just let everything slide because we're perpetually waiting for more evidence. But it's not 'sliding', it's going to court. And it doesn't concern us anyway -- it's not like we witnessed it in real life and didn't speak out.

Hitting on women inappropriately isn't illegal. Being a slimy VC and using your position to meet the ladies isn't illegal. Nor is sending explicit texts, as long as the target isn't underaged and you're not technically stalking them. Not investing in some guy's company because you think he is ugly or you hate his dad isn't illegal, either.

It all those things are not illegal, then it's probably not our job to call them immoral either.

Rich people use their position to attract girls all the time, it doesn't change if they are VC or not. You can always tell them that you're not interested or to get the fuck off if they insist. Besides their riches are part of who they are (it's not like they just won the lottery) -- a struggling artist or fair-trade hippie activist will also use his being as such to attract girls who are into that sort of thing.

I don't find "explicit texts" of concern either. What is this, victorian morality police? Some texts are bad because they are naughty? "I want to have sex with you" might even be more open and honest than "Let's have some coffee" (when the main reason is ending up in bed).

Threatening texts or actual sexual assault on the other hand, well, yeah, that's of concern.

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

#347

Post by coldtea »

rayiner wrote: post #202
deciplex wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not really any value in having that sort of chat with anyone in a professional context.

I was a robot club nerd so the concept of locker room talk is foreign to me. But now as a grown up, I can't say that I've ever felt unable to connect with another man because I can't make a sexually aggressive comment about a coworker or mutual acquaintance.

Note that the "sexually aggressive comment" can just refer to a plain "sexual comment" (which changes the whole sentence's meaning).

And it's labelled "aggressive" because of several centuries of hardcore religious puritanism leaving their mark on all aspects of US culture. Sex is naughty. Sex talk is aggressive.

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

#348

Post by khazhoux »

irpapakons wrote: post #193
anothercomment wrote: post #170

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…

> Now the question is, what motivates you to seek out a relatively far-fetched justification for this man's possible innocence?

You're implying he supports sexual harassment.

He's bringing up a perfectly valid question for discussion: what if the person has an outsized opinion of his attractiveness, and also happens to be a VC -- is that still sexual harassment or just stupidity?

Well, the answer is that in this case it's still harassment.

And so now there's question, answer, discussion, etc. No need to accuse the poster of being complicit himself in harassment.

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

#349

Post by coldtea »

leereeves wrote: post #124
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just power. Men and women have somewhat different distributions of personalities. Women, on average, are more willing to try to smooth things over rather than engage in explicit conflict. If you flip the genders, then on average, abuse of power will cause outright conflict sooner rather than after it has built up to completely unacceptable levels.

In our present culture, men rarely report sexual harassment or domestic violence, believing (correctly) that they won't be believed or will be expected to endure (or enjoy) it. And direct confrontation often leads to male victims being charged.

I disagree, and think that what's more illuminating is what happens if they DO report it, and the tone of which they report it. Of which this is not very far off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6uvv1aS5_I

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

#350

Post by khazhoux »

irpapakons wrote: post #248
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a microcosm of 'ddoolin's point. Step back and read it a few times, and think about what you're saying: you've presented an alternative view from my own, so sexual harassment must be acceptable to you.

I agree my reply was not helpful, but there was a point I was trying to make: Sometimes people who are keen to defend harassers might do so because they exhibit similar behaviours themselves or hold similar beliefs and want to defend themselves. Here is an example from this very story: Caldbeck tweeted in support of Uber: "Also mob mentality w @Uber right now. Guilty before proven innocent on everything". I genuinely…

> I genuinely think it's worth self-examining one's motivations if someone's first instinct is to defend the man in such a case.

Why do you assume it was his (or her?) first instinct? This HN thread has already well-established that Caldbeck's behavior is repugnant. Do we need every single poster to +1, or can people propose questions for discussion without being accused of being part of the problem?

Post reply on HN