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

Post by bookmarkacc » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

reducesuffering wrote: post #116

What follows is a statement that Caldbeck provided to Axios this afternoon. "The past 24 hours have been the darkest of my life. I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. To say I'm sorry about my behavior is a categorical understatement. Still, I need to say it: I am so, so sorry. I direct my apology first to those women who I've made feel uncomfortable in…

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 9:21 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #14

drewrv wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it's more of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said".

When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.

Post by admiralpumpkin » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 9:24 PM 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.

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 9:24 PM UTC

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…

Post by FT_intern » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

bobabooey02 wrote: post #109

gizmo686 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the point. There are two ways to view the problem: it is either a women's problem, or a people problem that dissproportionantly affects women. By framing it as a womens problem, you are turning it into an issue of identity politics, with all the pros and cons that come with it. (eg, stronger solidarity from the in-group, at the expanse of alienating the out-group, as well as the growing backlash to identi…

Speaking of one group is not ignoring the other. Nobody said that sexual harassment against men is okay. It's okay to recognize that social norms affect the genders asymmetrically and structure language around that.