Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#2How much of a jerk someone is (due to sexual harassment or other reasons) is like Big O notation. Sure, they’re not like that ALL the time, but do you want to be around someone with a jerk limit of O(n^n) ?
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#3I went through 500 Startups a few years ago. Dave McClure was barely present for the day-to-day, but I now have this feeling that while I was working my ass off, women in my cohort were also working their asses off AND may have been dealing with unwanted advances from McClure (and probably other difficulties associated with being a woman founder / early startup employee).
And that's what really gets me... how unequal the situation might have been and how oblivious I was.
So while part of me wants to defend McClure, someone who I've met and respected, I think of the women in my cohort and this article really resonates with me.
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#4FWIW, the OP is responding to a July 1 piece by the co-founder of Slideshare, and both pieces were published before the later, more unsettling revelations and allegations about McClure. The piece being responded to has an update and link to a mea culpa, which states that she would have never posted her original apologia for McClure had she known about the newer allegations: https://medium.com/@rashmi/i-stand-in-support-of-the-victims...
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#5>...if the problem is that that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes, it doesn’t really mitigate the situation that he doesn’t do it all the time, and to every woman he encounters.
The assumption being that "the problem is that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes", which may or may not be true. Character witness is relevant in these kinds of cases.
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#6>...if the problem is that that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes, it doesn’t really mitigate the situation that he doesn’t do it all the time, and to every woman he encounters. The assumption being that "the problem is that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes", which may or may not be true. Character witness is relevant in these kinds of cases.
When one woman accuses a particular man of sexually inappropriate behavior at work, I tend to believe her. When a number of women do, I am very sure they are right, though every particular incident might not be exactly as they described.
Why is this? It's because, from what I have read, a number of studies find that when women are treated inappropriately at work, they rarely speak up. This is because they are afraid they wouldn't be believed, and there would be retaliation by their employers. They are also afraid they would be personally attacked by raving asshole woman-haters. Woman I have talked to personally on this subject have told me the same thing.
As to character witnesses, the whole piece is an argument as to why they are not very relevant.
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#7This article feels like piling on to me. VC's by their nature are rapacious, driven individuals... and so are most entrepreneurs, male or female.
I can think of several women I have worked with who have weaponized their sex appeal to gain advantage in the workplace, essentially being outrageously flirtatious with their target and then being outraged when they get the desired results, running to HR and climbing over their patsie on the career ladder. I know somebody who now has a c suite position in a major global company who did their MBA funded by the results of a silicon valley CEO rape accusation settlement.
I've met Dave McLure a couple of times and don't particularly like the guy, he seems very hard nosed and lacking in empathy. When some women swim with sharks they expect them to behave themselves which seems naive to me. This whole 'visit the rich uncle to persuade them to give us a unicorn budget' VC perception seems hopelessly naive, or perhaps I'm just over reacting to the endless articles about this.
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#8>...if the problem is that that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes, it doesn’t really mitigate the situation that he doesn’t do it all the time, and to every woman he encounters. The assumption being that "the problem is that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes", which may or may not be true. Character witness is relevant in these kinds of cases.
When one woman accuses a particular man of sexually inappropriate behavior at work, I tend to believe her. When a number of women do, I am very sure they are right, though every particular incident might not be exactly as they described. Why is this? It's because, from what I have read, a number of studies find that when women are treated inappropriately at work, they rarely speak up. This is because they are afraid…
>Why is this? It's because, from what I have read, a number of studies find that when women are treated inappropriately at work, they rarely speak up.
That doesn't follow logically. Just because women tend not to "speak up" when they're treated badly doesn't mean women who aren't treated badly "speak up" when nothing happened. You just don't know.
>As to character witnesses, the whole piece is an argument as to why they are not very relevant.
Yes, and not a very good one. When you get into a he said/she said situation character witnesses are usually all you have to go on.
Re: Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t eat everyone he met, either
#9>...if the problem is that that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes, it doesn’t really mitigate the situation that he doesn’t do it all the time, and to every woman he encounters. The assumption being that "the problem is that Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes", which may or may not be true. Character witness is relevant in these kinds of cases.
> Dave behaves inappropriately sometimes", which may or may not be true
He wrote a whole article where he admitted it was true.