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

Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 185 posts

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#91

Post by igloofoo »

egwynn wrote: post #84
igloofoo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP just highlights the speed at which careers are getting destroyed on accusations alone (guilty b4 proven innocent), and pragmatically suggests that it is possible for a malicious user to exploit this vulnerability. Also Steve wasn't fired from DFJ (not RFJ), he left to sue

I was gonna reply to your first draft (the one which started “reeks of troll”), but then it was already changed by the time I clicked the “reply” button. You’ve made at least five edits since then. Stop, think, write, post.

My bad, I felt I sounded a little passive-aggressive. New on the boards. Let me know your thoughts on the final draft:)

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#92

Post by gdulli »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #42
hkmurakami wrote: post #27

Following these very visible and high profile falls from grace, in politics, media and entertainment, and high tech, there must be some legitimate concerns that in the near future the Billy Graham rule [1] (or lately called the Graham-Pence rule) will find more followers than before. Many men in power will instinctually and subconsciously cut out women from their professional lives more than before, to the detriment…

I know this might not be a popular opinion. But I've basically instituted a modified version of this rule for myself. Billy Graham and Mike Pence are definitely not a fountain a good ideas, but that doesn't mean this rule is that bad, despite the nonsense place it comes from. Whenever I need to have after work dinner/social communication with a female associate after 5:00pm, I just go out of my way to invite another…

What's your insinuation about being alone with a woman being unsafe? That you don't trust yourself not to do something inappropriate or that you don't trust the woman not to make up a false accusation?

When you go shopping do you take a chaperone so as to keep yourself out of a potentially unsafe shoplifting situation?

We're all always adjacent to a potential crime or difficult situation. But we're not supposed to live in fear of them.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#93

Post by egwynn »

downandout wrote: post #80
egwynn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not convinced that "career death due to fraudulent sexual misconduct allegations” is a ramptant problem in tech. Based on nearly 100% of women I’ve ever known in tech, the vast majority of sexual misconduct either goes unreported or gets reported and ignored. Maybe you have some better data about this, though. If so, do share. And besides, I have a hard time imagining that a large VC firm would fire one of its fo…

If there were proof - emails, texts, etc - it would have been leaked to recode and other publications to avoid perceptions like mine. Public disclosures of these kinds of actions are meticulously calculated. Mr. Jurveston clearly disputes the allegations, to the point where he is promising litigation. The lack of evidence publicly presented likely means that it is a flimsy accusation - likely a “he said/she said” kin…

    Public disclosures of these kinds of actions
    are meticulously calculated
Are they? All we have is a FB post from one of their entrepreneurs. She probably (sensibly) thinks there’s a better authority for dealing with the situation than the general public.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#94

Post by s73ver_ »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #75
tetrep wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you extend the same principles to homosexual men? Are homosexual women exempted? I find it easier to not have to consider the sexual preferences of my coworkers when I'm interacting with them. Edit: I should add, if someone is going to attack my character, they're going to do it regardless of what I do. I'm not going to go out of my way to prevent that. Similar to using encryption everywhere you can: it makes the…

> Do you extend the same principles to homosexual men? Are homosexual women exempted? The worry is about him appearing plausibly improper, so their sexuality doesn't matter.

Right, but the implication is that they'd be just fine meeting one on one with another man. That it's only women who get treated specially.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#95

Post by aaron695 »

astura wrote: post #82
shifter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of feminists think this denies networking opportunities for women.

I'm a woman and I am a feminist. Unless you are an actor or dancer any sort of touching with coworkers is very inappropriate for all genders, sexual or non sexual touching included. Keeping your work and professional lives separate is just good sense. It's rude to make comments about other people's appearances unless you are very close friends with them. Closed door meetings are sometimes needed but you should never…

As such I would not want to work with you or hire you, man or woman.

Work is the majority of many peoples lives. Human touch is fucking important to most homosapians and is used continiuosly and importantly in most interactions (like other things like the obvious talking but also smell and body language)

I understand you might have a disorder or be atypical but the problem is you seem to think societies entire wellbeing should be reduced for your own wellbeing rather than dealing with your atypicalness or disability.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#96

Post by egwynn »

Alex3917 wrote: post #88
egwynn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many others will make a fear-driven overreaction. This. The actual risk involved here (job loss due to fraudulent accusations) must be so tiny as to be negligible.

I'm not convinced the risk of job loss due to false accusations is negligible, but it's hard to see how actually trying to make friends with people would increase that risk.

It’s just a rough intuition/guess of mine. I tried to think about anyone I’ve heard of (in/near my social network) who’d lost a job due to any accusations at all. Two came to mind, both with smoking-gun evidence. Even if I knew five people who were dismissed on claims alone (which would still probably be a mix of true and false claims), that’d still put the fraction at well under one percent.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#97

Post by woolvalley »

astura wrote: post #82
shifter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of feminists think this denies networking opportunities for women.

I'm a woman and I am a feminist. Unless you are an actor or dancer any sort of touching with coworkers is very inappropriate for all genders, sexual or non sexual touching included. Keeping your work and professional lives separate is just good sense. It's rude to make comments about other people's appearances unless you are very close friends with them. Closed door meetings are sometimes needed but you should never…

You spend the majority of you life in work, and to avoid making friends with some people you spend time with is very isolating. I'm not going to the weekly board game thing because then, gasp, I might make friends!

Imagine if we applied the same standards to school.

I think this attitude is part of the reason why adults have a hard time making friends after college.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#98

Post by Dylan16807 »

s73ver_ wrote: post #94
Dylan16807 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you extend the same principles to homosexual men? Are homosexual women exempted? The worry is about him appearing plausibly improper, so their sexuality doesn't matter.

Right, but the implication is that they'd be just fine meeting one on one with another man. That it's only women who get treated specially.

Yes, that's the point. That this paranoia is bad for women. And the paranoia is all about a man with any element of power interacting with a woman. The first party's sexuality is somewhat relevant, but the latter's doesn't matter at all.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#99

Post by ShabbosGoy »

astura wrote: post #82
shifter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of feminists think this denies networking opportunities for women.

I'm a woman and I am a feminist. Unless you are an actor or dancer any sort of touching with coworkers is very inappropriate for all genders, sexual or non sexual touching included. Keeping your work and professional lives separate is just good sense. It's rude to make comments about other people's appearances unless you are very close friends with them. Closed door meetings are sometimes needed but you should never…

> Unless you are an actor or dancer any sort of touching with coworkers is very inappropriate for all genders, sexual or non sexual touching included.

Weird. So I guess you never shake hands with someone in a business meeting, and it is only appropriate to do so if you are an actor or dancer.

> Closed door meetings are sometimes needed but you should never do them excessively or with only the young or attractive, that looks like you're being inappropriate.

When I worked at Evil Corp, the only meetings I could have were behind closed doors. I worked closely with a female colleague on another team - she was young and attractive, nobody thought it was inappropriate.

> Basically, it's just professionalism and should apply to everyone, all genders.

I can agree to that.

Re: Steve Jurvetson is out at his own VC firm after allegations of sexual harassment

#100

Post by jparse »

egwynn wrote: post #76
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this might not be a popular opinion. But I've basically instituted a modified version of this rule for myself. Billy Graham and Mike Pence are definitely not a fountain a good ideas, but that doesn't mean this rule is that bad, despite the nonsense place it comes from. Whenever I need to have after work dinner/social communication with a female associate after 5:00pm, I just go out of my way to invite another…

I dunno if I’d say that makes you a jerk, but it strikes me as maybe a little overcautious. As with any security/safety issue, I think it comes down to the threat model you’re using. What’s the attack vector you’re protecting against? How likely is it that any attempt on that vector will succeed? What’s the damage if it succeeds? Speaking for myself, it never seems like I need to go too far out of my normal mode in o…

The threat model is an accusation. You are toast if you even get one accusation because it is cheaper to just get rid of you even if you are innocent.

Frankly, I think he is not being cautious enough because the term "sexual harassment" has also moved into the realm of disagreement. Maybe you don't like her work and criticize it or maybe you are her boss and not agreeing with her performance. Most women quickly figure the criticism is being levied because he is overtly professional with them and also because they are women. I have had many women come to me and tell me these stories with this line of reasoning.

Most women aren't like this but the threat model the OP is using is legitimate. In 2017, if you get accused, you are done. Your family is done. Just move to Bermuda and retire. It is not something you can recover from.

> we do walking meetings around the block in public areas.

Please don't do this.

Post reply on HN