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

411–420 of 484 posts

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

#411

Post by rayiner »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #333
DonHopkins wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying idiots can't sexually harass people. Is that your excuse?

I think he's trying to distinguish between someone with poor ability to pick up on social cues (from someone with poor ability to communicate their wishes/feelings) and a sexual predator. That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.

You've got to take responsibility for your actions and not make your problem other peoples' problem. If I'm nearsighted, it's irresponsible for me to drive without my glasses. Likewise, if you're bad at pickup up social cues, you probably should not be hitting on coworkers.

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

#412

Post by whataretensors »

tootie wrote: post #273
philip1209 wrote: post #216

Reid Hoffman wrote an essay prompted by this, calling for building an "industry-wide HR function" for VC: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-rights-women-entreprene...

Is that like some sort of corporate police? That's actually not a bad idea. Like every sort of harassment claim goes to an independent agency to be evaluated and investigated. Any business who wants credibility with their employees pays some dues to that agency and agrees to abide their decisions.

-

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

#413

Post by wruza »

URSpider94 wrote: post #285
braveo wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not taking no for an answer is sexual harassment, if it makes the person on the receiving end uncomfortable.

Women who don't say "no" for the first time are widely considered low-moral, not to mention that the first approach may be unexpected for her, so timeout is needed. And men who can truly see whether she's really uncomfortable or just playing well-known game can be counted on fingers. It seems that this rule, as you state it, leaves no legal room for regular, not very confident or skilled people to "interact".

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

#414

Post by tacomonstrous »

jbmorgado wrote: post #410
tacomonstrous wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be a fine line, but a superior who refuses to meet one-on-one with you just because you're a woman is not doing their job well.

Not in a culture like the one we we are living, where a woman only needs to accuse a men - without any evidence - of sexual harassment and automatically ruin all his carer and possibly his family life. Even if the case never gets to trial or even if it does and it can be proved the woman was simply lying, your life is already over. Just see what happened to Strauss Khan from IMF (not that I actually liked that guy TB…

If the best example you can come up with is someone who literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid in his room just before leaving the country, which blowjob was only the latest instance of various supershady sexual activities/overtures involving subordinates and colleagues, then your position must be a very weak one indeed.

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

#415

Post by nbouscal »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #396
tootie wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that like some sort of corporate police? That's actually not a bad idea. Like every sort of harassment claim goes to an independent agency to be evaluated and investigated. Any business who wants credibility with their employees pays some dues to that agency and agrees to abide their decisions.

Almost like, the police? The law should be handling sexual harassment. The reasons why we have these issues with companies is because there's a conflict of interest. The police are a third party and have no interest in the success/failure of the company, ideally.

> The law should be handling sexual harassment.

I think people on both sides of this issue would love it if the law showed itself capable of handling sexual harassment cases. Unfortunately we have way too much evidence that that just isn't the case. The obvious example that comes to mind is Brock Turner getting three months, and that's in the best case where someone is actually convicted. Far too often it never gets to that point, not because the harassment/assault didn't occur, but because the legal system is so utterly shit at handling it. The 'outragism' that so many people decry only exists in the first place because every system that is supposed to prevent or punish these acts has failed so completely.

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

#416

Post by tootie »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #396
tootie wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that like some sort of corporate police? That's actually not a bad idea. Like every sort of harassment claim goes to an independent agency to be evaluated and investigated. Any business who wants credibility with their employees pays some dues to that agency and agrees to abide their decisions.

Almost like, the police? The law should be handling sexual harassment. The reasons why we have these issues with companies is because there's a conflict of interest. The police are a third party and have no interest in the success/failure of the company, ideally.

The problem is corporate HR/PR departments acting against public interest to protect their employers. Besides, you can't call the cops to complain you were passed over for promotion because you refused sexual advances.

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

#417

Post by grandalf »

dang wrote: post #328
nickrivadeneira wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity, what about his comment is trolling other than it being a contrarian opinion in this forum?

That's a legit question (especially out of curiosity) but one that takes a surprising amount of energy to answer precisely. I might be able to do that tomorrow, but in the meantime here are some answers in the same vein. It's all the same principle, but the details vary. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... Edit: I wrote some more downthread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14627388…

I haven't read this thread yet but I'm curious why the downvote mechanism isn't sufficient moderation in a case like this.

HN has been a superb place for discussion of issues relating to workplace harassment and it seems that having certain ideas forbidden is likely to harm the discussion.

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

#418

Post by tootie »

whataretensors wrote: post #412
tootie wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that like some sort of corporate police? That's actually not a bad idea. Like every sort of harassment claim goes to an independent agency to be evaluated and investigated. Any business who wants credibility with their employees pays some dues to that agency and agrees to abide their decisions.

-

Uh, isn't it called laws? We already codify victimhood pretty thoroughly. This would be a voluntary extension of legal protection to a credible third-party. Not government, not corporate. Corporations purchase their credibility and are also relieved of forming their own harassment policies which tend to be reactionary after the first public incident. Imagine if GitHub had this from day one.

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

#419

Post by whataretensors »

dgacmu wrote: post #275
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response changed my mind on the matter, so thank you. It's especially relevant given how all of this played out. (See the other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621765 and subsequent admission https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave... ) Any ideas for recognizing situations where a bit of skepticism is warranted vs situations like this? In this case, I'm a little saddened that m…

Since you're asking seriously, I have a hypothesis that probably applies to a lot of the well-meaning skeptical responses in this thread: Most of the men replying in this thread have an incorrect "prior" (in the statistical sense) of the odds that a woman will experience serious sexual harassment in the workplace. This prior emerges, one presumes, because we look at ourselves as the model for estimating that behavior…

-

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

#420

Post by jbmorgado »

tacomonstrous wrote: post #414
jbmorgado wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in a culture like the one we we are living, where a woman only needs to accuse a men - without any evidence - of sexual harassment and automatically ruin all his carer and possibly his family life. Even if the case never gets to trial or even if it does and it can be proved the woman was simply lying, your life is already over. Just see what happened to Strauss Khan from IMF (not that I actually liked that guy TB…

If the best example you can come up with is someone who literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid in his room just before leaving the country, which blowjob was only the latest instance of various supershady sexual activities/overtures involving subordinates and colleagues, then your position must be a very weak one indeed.

> "If the best example you can come up with is someone who literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid in his room "

See your way of reasoning in which you automatically assume that whenever a woman accuses a men in power than the men is guilty, is exactly the problem here.

Where can you tell Strauss Khan "literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid" in a case that didn't even go to trial because the accuser was found guilty of "repeatedly lying" in several of her statements by no less than a grand jury?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#New_Yor...

Post reply on HN