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

McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#121

Post by kelnos »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #52
downandout wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melinda Gates worked at Microsoft when she met Bill. Should he be publicly tarred and feathered like this? By your logic, he abused his authority and he should not have dated or married his wife because he held power over her - he could have immediately fired her if she had rejected his advances. So where do we draw the line, and why isn't Bill on the firing line in the same way these others are?

Well, one simple heuristic is to wait for the party NOT in power to initiate the relationship. If this entrepreneur who got hit on had propositioned McClure instead, I don't think people would have minded that.

That's still a questionable situation. If a subordinate asks out a superior, how does the superior know if they're actually interested, or are just hoping for preferential treatment? And even beyond that, peers of the subordinate, once they find out about the relationship (and of course, they will find out), may be uncomfortable with a peer of theirs having the ability -- whether real or perceived -- to bend the boss' ear to that degree.

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#122

Post by kelnos »

gcatalfamo wrote: post #115

Without defending anyone, My honest takeout by the whole sexual harassment threshold in the bay area or the US in general is that you could never end up together or even married with a colleague in that paranoid atmosphere. Which is exactly what I did where I live in Italy. Happily married and yes, after saying things to a colleague of mine that would have made me accused in the bay area.

There's a difference between being involved with a peer or with someone outside your reporting structure on the org chart, and being involved with someone who is inside your reporting structure. It's the differential in power when combined with sexual advances that creates problems, not the sexual advances alone.

Of course, unwanted sexual advances are a problem regardless of the relationship of the two parties, but unwanted or wanted advances between two people with a superior/subordinate relationship is where we get into trouble.

At all companies I've worked for in the US, there's never been a ban or stigma against colleagues dating, as long as there's no power differential between the two people. We still of course always expect people to behave professionally within a professional setting, but after-hours is your business.

If relationships between people with a power differential are commonplace in Italy, that's... unfortunate.

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#123

Post by kelnos »

superplussed wrote: post #113
ithinkinstereo wrote: post #98

Oh and he referenced his penis size at a startup event: https://twitter.com/founderofstick/status/880977488494469122 Sarah Kunst, the woman quoted in the NYT, mentions that other women have reached out to her about McClure. Like Caldwell, also all women of color: https://twitter.com/sarahkunst/status/881004317674577920

I saw him speak at a fireside chat here in Berlin, and was struck by his overall juvenile attitude and idiocy. Given that that was his "shtick" I guess he was just hiding in plain sight. But I'm surprised that his poor judgement is such a shock to people when it's evident from his performances in public .

Yeah, that's the thing I don't get. I'm certainly no stranger to foul language (2 minutes with me in a social setting and that's obvious), but his shtick always seemed to me to be about shock value and getting a reaction, and a certain amount of braggadocio around being an "outsider", which has always turned me off.

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#124

Post by FeatureRush »

ithinkinstereo wrote: post #69
chrischen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m playing devil’s advocate here but what if the woman found McClure attractive and didn’t complain because of it. Is it still wrong?

Yes, they met as two professionals in the context of an open job position. Inappropriate move #1 was contacting the job applicant over FB, #2 was making a comment about whether or not to "hire" or "hit on" her. The fact that he places the chances of hiring her in relation to "hitting" on her is wildly inappropriate. If he wanted a relationship, there are infinitely better and more appropriate ways to go about it, esp…

> If he wanted a relationship, there are infinitely better and more appropriate ways to go about it, especially if he thought she might actually be interested.

McClure aside, in general situation when during recruitment precess you meet someone you would like to date is there really a way to go about it that doesn't end badly? Message during recruitment is plain creepy. Asking them out after they are hired is bad for obvious reasons like you being the superior and him/her having the impression that this is the real reason they've been hired. There was at least one story on HN that I remember when someone wasn't hired and soon after was asked for a date and it also ended badly, even if that person waited some time to be "safe" that still could be counted as stalking and using information summited during the interview for personal reasons is bad.

But you can't even ask about their phone number anyway! It doesn't matter if your intentions are honest and you two could be a good couple if you met at different occasion. Once the recruitment process starts he/she is pretty much removed form your dating pool. Even if you ask nicely without any inappropriate signals - any move you make can be seen by him/her as you taking advantage of the situation. Even innocent question about phone number can have really scary implications from his/her point of view.

Sure it can end in nice date or maybe an awkward silence and you explaining yourself and apologizing or it can give them a true nightmare... Are you going to risk it?

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#125

Post by chrischen »

ithinkinstereo wrote: post #69
chrischen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m playing devil’s advocate here but what if the woman found McClure attractive and didn’t complain because of it. Is it still wrong?

Yes, they met as two professionals in the context of an open job position. Inappropriate move #1 was contacting the job applicant over FB, #2 was making a comment about whether or not to "hire" or "hit on" her. The fact that he places the chances of hiring her in relation to "hitting" on her is wildly inappropriate. If he wanted a relationship, there are infinitely better and more appropriate ways to go about it, esp…

Someone else here mentioned that Bill Gates met Melinda (his wife) while she was working at Microsoft. Wouldn't this mean their relationship shouldn't have happened/is wrong?

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#126

Post by plinkplonk »

timcederman wrote: post #114
plinkplonk wrote: post #105

something I've never understood. These guys (Kalanick, McClure) are multi millionaires, and could probably get any number of women to take interest in them on that basis alone. Why risk career suicide? Why would they need to hit on women at their workplaces ? Why isn't the normal dating game (where they have a massive edge via being loaded) sufficient? I don't get it (at all). What am I missing? These guys seem to be…

> get any number of women to take interest in them on that basis alone Seriously?

Yes seriously.

Are you implying that tremendously rich men (barring mental illnesses / crippling social anxiety) are disadvantaged with respect to dating? Or even that being tremendously rich is not a factor at all? If so, I'll have some of what you are smoking.

The people under discussion are men(if you are objecting to the use of 'men' vs 'people'. I specifically used Kalanick and McClure as examples).

This also applies to rich vs poor women. It also applies irrespective of whether you are hetero, homo, bi, or * sexual.

Being tremendously rich makes success in all kinds of apparently unrelated fields easier. Yes, you'll probably attract a good number of gold diggers, but excluding those explicitly targeting your money, in every society in the world, being rich(/powerful/famous) makes you more desirable in the mating game.

Perhaps in an ideal world, it shouldn't work like that, but that is a different point.

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#127

Post by dotmanish »

plinkplonk wrote: post #105

something I've never understood. These guys (Kalanick, McClure) are multi millionaires, and could probably get any number of women to take interest in them on that basis alone. Why risk career suicide? Why would they need to hit on women at their workplaces ? Why isn't the normal dating game (where they have a massive edge via being loaded) sufficient? I don't get it (at all). What am I missing? These guys seem to be…

> These guys (Kalanick, McClure) are multi millionaires, and could probably get any number of women to take interest in them on that basis alone.

General psychology pattern: People run after what can't be easily gained. Entrepreneurs, more so.

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#128

Post by plinkplonk »

dotmanish wrote: post #127
plinkplonk wrote: post #105

something I've never understood. These guys (Kalanick, McClure) are multi millionaires, and could probably get any number of women to take interest in them on that basis alone. Why risk career suicide? Why would they need to hit on women at their workplaces ? Why isn't the normal dating game (where they have a massive edge via being loaded) sufficient? I don't get it (at all). What am I missing? These guys seem to be…

> These guys (Kalanick, McClure) are multi millionaires, and could probably get any number of women to take interest in them on that basis alone. General psychology pattern: People run after what can't be easily gained. Entrepreneurs, more so.

Ah good point. I never thought about it like that. Thanks.

Re: McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation

#130

Post by crispytx »

plinkplonk wrote: post #105

something I've never understood. These guys (Kalanick, McClure) are multi millionaires, and could probably get any number of women to take interest in them on that basis alone. Why risk career suicide? Why would they need to hit on women at their workplaces ? Why isn't the normal dating game (where they have a massive edge via being loaded) sufficient? I don't get it (at all). What am I missing? These guys seem to be…

I don't think that's fair to lump Travis Kalanick into the same boat as Dave McClure. Kalanick didn't sexually harass anyone personally, his subordinates did. There isn't really any evidence that Travis Kalanick tried to cover anything up either. If you read that Susan Fowler blog post regarding sexual harassment at Uber, it sounds like she was sexually harassed by one person, and the HR department wouldn't do anything about it. To me that sounds like the harasser and the HR department are the guilty parties, not Travis Kalanick.
Post reply on HN