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

141–150 of 201 posts

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

#141

Post by thanksgiving »

ajmurmann wrote: post #50
thanksgiving wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this sexual harassment? It sounds like calling a party where the food is bad "literally Auschwitz". Reverse the genders. Is this still sexual harassment? If not, then this isn't sexual harassment either. I still think this is in poor taste. The attempts to defend it is worse. However, let us commit to refraining from calling it sexual harassment until it is sexual harassment. Calling this sexual harassment is like…

I think this is much more serious that you are making it sound if I'm reading your post correctly. As a potential investor you are in a position of power. Depending how things are going it might be a very serious power imbalance. The person seeking funding might feel very compelled to in essence prostitute themselves.

Absolutely. I'm not saying nothing happened. I'm not defending him at all. I'm just saying the word "sexual" is counter productive.

Harassment is harassment. It is not the fact that something is sexual in nature that bothers me. It is the fact that someone abused their position of authority.

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

#142

Post by jusssi »

FeatureRush wrote: post #124
ithinkinstereo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

(a) No, not one where you have any control whether it goes bad or not

(b) Your day job is not a dating service

(c) If you can't figure out a and b on your own, you're not mature enough for a position of power

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

#143

Post by FeatureRush »

jusssi wrote: post #142
FeatureRush wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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? (a) No, not one where you have any control whether it goes bad or not (b) Your day job is not a dating service (c) If you can't figure out a and b on your own, you're not mature enough for a position of power

Was it not clear that this is what I was saying? That asking out that would be OK in other situations is not OK in the context of job interview?

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

#144

Post by jusssi »

FeatureRush wrote: post #143
jusssi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? (a) No, not one where you have any control whether it goes bad or not (b) Your day job is not a dating service (c) If you can't figure out a and b on your own, you're not mature enough for a position of power

Was it not clear that this is what I was saying? That asking out that would be OK in other situations is not OK in the context of job interview?

I feel you said (a), and (b) and (c) were my additions. If you implied them and I missed it, then please consider my comment as TLDR-as-a-Service =)

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

#145

Post by hbt »

kelnos wrote: post #122
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…

Relationships with a power differential are common in the US too.

Women generally date up. This is especially common within professions with a high status since it is difficult to meet someone equal/better. View https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/

People generally are poor at reading others and end up pushing too far or getting offended easily (not referring to this case)

What's more likely to happen is what has been highlighted in the "sex partition" - https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Office-Partition-Dividing-Workpla...

Men are more likely to create more barriers to protect themselves and prevent bad optics rather than walk on egg shells around women. This in turn limits opportunities for women (aka glass ceiling).

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

#146

Post by ThomPete »

amasad wrote: post #102
ThomPete wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldnt have any issues with that honestly. We are humans not machines. We say things sometimes that get interpreted as something its not. The comment Mclure made was stupid. But calling it sexism or herrasment as if its some systemic thing seems a tad extreme too.

it's pretty unambiguous what he said. Unless he pulls a Clinton (be skeptical about the definition of "is") there is no way for this to "get interpreted as something its not".

He said what he sad. Whether it's unambiguously sexist is another question.

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

#147

Post by askmike »

borski wrote: post #109
anindha wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen questionable material come from him [1]: Examples: "Money Shot" with kitten spreadings its legs and "Great Products...Get you LAID". [1] https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/how-to-pitch-a-vc-or-a... edit: link directly to slides and deleted nested comment.

To be fair, the second slide directly says it is guaranteed to offend.

Is that supposed to excuse it?

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

#148

Post by NDT »

chrischen wrote: post #125
ithinkinstereo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are many public figures who have met, dated, and married their colleagues. One that comes to mind is Jimmy Kimmel and his wife (head writer for his show). I think as long as it doesn't affect hiring/promoting/professional decisions it's a different situation. This is also assuming, of course, that there is no form of harassment going on.

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

#149

Post by thinbeige »

Slightly OT: Everyone wants to become a CEO or VC. But the truth is you don't want to. You'll miss the times when you were a naive intern who could mess around with just everyone you met both on a private and professional level. Once you juggle millions it's over. The slightest advance is treated--with good reason--as sexual harassment.

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

#150

Post by FeatureRush »

jusssi wrote: post #144
FeatureRush wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it not clear that this is what I was saying? That asking out that would be OK in other situations is not OK in the context of job interview?

I feel you said (a), and (b) and (c) were my additions. If you implied them and I missed it, then please consider my comment as TLDR-as-a-Service =)

Sorry, on it's own the sentence you cited can be read both ways and I was afraid you stopped reading there. My bad.
Post reply on HN