I don't know the guy aside from what I have read in the press (both good and bad), but I'd like to think he wrote this with genuine sincerity.
Hopefully this is the start of a groundswell trend of traits such as 'accountability' and 'taking responsibility for your actions' becoming fashionable and an expected part of human behaviour again.
I don't think the trend to more genuine sounding apologies reflects an increase in actual empathy/understanding. I just think PR firms have realized you can't get away with the old "sorry if you got offended and can't handle my awesomeness" pseudo-apology nowadays.
This one sounds pretty genuine. With something of this nature you'd be stupid not to have PR people help out, but it does sound genuine.
It sounds like he's stepping back and taking a very hard look at his actions and behavior. Hopefully he improves and doesn't do the same in the future.
Also, hopefully other similarly situated people see this and learn from his (now very public) mistakes.
The best PR is usually going to be PR that doesn't sound like PR. I do hope people learn from this, but I tend to be dubious of "I've changed!" statements immediately after getting caught.
Well, let's be fair here: He didn't say "I've changed" he said "I am trying to change." And this isn't necessarily immediately after getting caught, but after the story was published in the New York Times; it's implied earlier that other people in the company approached him and explained to him that his behavior was unacceptable.
I think it's PR, but that doesn't automatically mean he isn't genuinely apologizing. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm also cynical by nature but ... I'm also hopeful that his behavior does change and that we see that he was sincere by the lack of further examples of bad behavior.
I keep a 100% wall between work and personal life for a reason. Anyone I'm doing business with I see at best as a coworker or business acquaintance, so there is no risk of merging those two realms.
If you are powerful man or woman, you should be aware that people who know who you are treat you differently. This Dave McClure guy actually thought all these women were into him purely because he was some amazing dude and not because he could finance their dreams. What a moron
My best friends have been those that I've worked with and never once has that been a problem for me because I know how to be an appropriate human being.
Not commenting on this case, but Billy Graham, after seeing what happened to other well know preachers, was never alone with any woman except his wife Ruth. It is a pretty good strategy. Today, a powerful person could probably enhance his/her personal security by having an assistant with an always on camera like some police forces use.
He may have been protecting himself from others, but also protecting himself from himself? I don't feel Billy Graham was eager to cheat, but he recognized his potential for giving in to temptation, and made specific choices ahead of time to minimize his risk.
He saw a lot in his life, and I would imagine that the stare into the abyss line was in his mind. I get the feeling that he was not really tempted to cheat himself (unlike some other that can be named), but was very conscious of a scandal.
For other, maybe in this case, having people around you to get you away from trouble is also an excellent idea. In a position of power, a person should also be conscious to the effects on all the people who depend on you. If you have a drinking problem, perhaps a constant sober coach is a good idea. Having a person to make sure you don't get personal with other might follow along those lines.
Like a lot of things in life, it is a two front war. Are you protected against some external agent, and are you protected from yourself. Some will only need one type of protection, but if you are in a position where people depend on you, then you should be honest, at least with yourself, and make some good choices.
> He may have been protecting himself from others, but also protecting himself from himself?
Does it matter? The fact is, if you are a man in a position of power, never being alone in a room with a woman you don't know very well, is starting to sound like a reasonable strategy.
People in other threads have said, that limiting your one-on-ones with women, inhibits their opportunities (perhaps we should not have one-on-ones at all to make that fair). But when there are other people in your life that you need to "protect" from any scandals, I really can't blame these men for picking their loved ones and reputations over "social justice".
This is one of those "going to get worse before it gets better" things.
VPOTUS Mike Pence takes the same approach. This makes it tough for him to give important jobs to women, at least ones who would have to work closely with him.
I would need actual proof that it makes it tough. Having a trusted assistant in the room, always, is not exactly a logistical problem. I'm trying to think of a work situation where it is imperative for two people and only two people to be alone. Seems like a bad thing even for M-M.
I agree its not a good thing, but its the way of a world where accusation is treated as fact and put on the front page and the retraction is somewhere inside the paper in small type.
People usually fall for these lies (whether of their own invention or others) because they want to believe. It's more like a cognitive bias than a lack of IQ.
I've got to wonder, why do coworkers go out for drinks if it's not a social setting? I don't understand the logic of mixing alcohol with colleagues if you're still under the "workplace" umbrella.
I don't really understand socializing with co-workers outside of work under any circumstances, but especially with intoxicants involved. This includes company holiday parties, etc. Let work be work, and keep your social life separate. I've seen far more bad than good come out of such things.
People are people. A true friendship can form between coworkers and there is no reason to forcefully undercut such a relationship just because it's "work". People willing to do that are very weird to me, and I am glad no such people work where I work, or have worked in the past.
Most of my best friends I've met at work, and we socialize often even after changing jobs. I also find it to be a great opportunity to blow off steam with like minded people, about the problems we're encountering in the workplace.
I went to dinner with seven good friends last week and we all met at the same employer. None of us have been coworkers for over five years. We spent about 2.5 hours together laughing and having a blast.
Some work environments are genuinely conducive to forming friendships and others are not. I haven't befriended coworkers at every job, but my closest friendships have all been from the workplace since leaving school.
This cut both ways. Power inbalance has the problem that sex is a extremely common strategy for gaining power in human societies. Predators can take any side on the relationship.
You know it used to be that men and women didn't work together, right? Like, this idea of being able to date at work has only been around for about 50 years or so, while the human race has been around for thousands. Somehow we figured out how to reproduce in the West without a "closed caste system" just fine. You can too, without dating anyone at your job.
There are plenty of people of different social classes than you who don't work at the same company as you, so I don't think a social norm saying that you shouldn't ask out maybe a few dozen people you work with is a "closed caste system".
The problem with him is his position. In a position where you can hire or fire people you should not be engaging in this kind of adolescent behavior.
People, colleagues and equals at work should be able to interact socially, over drinks and even hook up. People are human and sexual attraction is natural. I don't think we should try to pretend it does not exist and that we should remove it from the workplace.
What should not happen is people not knowing boundaries or social convention. People should know how to act and should know how not to act -even when drunk.
I don't think workplaces should be sterile, asocial places which ignore human predisposition to social interaction.
Have a quick google. You will find that 38% of people have dated a coworker. I am pretty sure a fair few of those have turned into lifelong relationships. Personally I would regard that as a good outcome.
There are many workplace cultures where it is expected of employees to socialize after hours if they want to get ahead. Individuals in those systems are generally following their self-interest.
The goal is to get to know your coworkers better, so you can see them as people instead of mere job descriptions. It's still a workplace setting, except that you are discouraged from talking about work. The alcohol is there to cut through the inevitable anxiety that such situations create, not as an excuse to be unprofessional.
How can you see them as people if they aren't being less professional in that setting? What would be the difference? Why wouldn't it be the exact same as water cooler talk?
If you see them as people, you should be able to interact with them as fully-rounded people, including asking them out (once only, not being a persistent nagging asshole), complimenting their attire, telling them the latest gossip, in short - communicating your feelings, provided the feeling is mutual. Whereas in a professional setting, you aren't a person, you're filling a role and obeying protocol. It's a sliding scale between "professional" and "casual", but generally when you're interacting professionally, you aren't addressing the full person, you're only letting your Senior Frobnicator part discuss frobnicating barbazniks with only the Chief Barbaznik Wrangler part of the person in front of you; whereas in a casual setting you're communicating with all parts of the person.
This might be the best summing up of the/our schizophrenic attitude towards professionalism (and work) that I've ever read. The words, "in a professional setting, you aren't a person," just nail it. Meanwhile, the corporation itself has the legal status of a person, and can now even claim to hold religious beliefs. Ergo, we could probably fix some of these issues in the valley with a few properly Gorean S Corps.
By "seeing them as people" I meant to show their personal, as in non professional side. I used the wording of the parents to try to show how it's a bit absurd to think that the lines aren't blurred.
The inappropriateness of McClure actions has no relationship to whether they occurred in a bar over a mixed drink or in an office over a bottled water. The "workplace umbrella", as you put it, follows him wherever he interacts with coworkers due to his position of power over them even if they are interacting in a social setting.
So a purely social drink with a non-coworker immediately becomes a workplace event when they ask about the possibility of working at your company? Ok, I can sort of see that... but I hope that situation never arises for me, because there's no way I'd be able to switch from "social" to "work" modes that fast.
In any event, I'm not sure that "a job you control" was the case here: It sounds like he (quite rightly) handed that off to someone else and had nothing to do with the hiring decision. It does seem like he should have been clearer to the applicant about not being part of that decision, though.
Fun fact: You don't have the right to be creepy or predatory towards women just because alcohol is involved. Women have the right to go out for drinks with coworkers without being sexually harassed.
> Women have the right to go out for drinks with coworkers without being sexually harassed.
Yes but you have to understand that we humans have a incredible high drive to reproduce, and many successful couples forms in the work environment. I have a child with a coworker.
Sexual approaches do happen in those kinds of environments but there are a big difference between approaching someone and sexually harassment. Modern women specially millennials tend to see any kind of approach (specially from unattractive males) as harassment and this is not the case, not even legally.
> Sexual approaches do happen in those kinds of environment
The power imbalance and lack of non-work relationship are key.
McClure had no personal relationship with this woman. They weren't friends, and they hadn't met in a non-professional setting.
Furthermore, he's in a position to make decisions about her future. In that situation, it's inappropriate to make the first move, because the other person will feel pressured to reciprocate, even if she doesn't want to.
This is very similar to the way professors aren't allowed to have sexual relationships with students in their classes, but students can have sexual relationships with each other.
Dangerous ground. I would expect contra in form of "mansplaining" or "justification of harassment".
I came to the conclusion that the topic has become too toxic to be discussed seriously. Especially based on a actual case. I just hope this electrified field will return to a base where everybody can talk seriously about it. With the aim being a solution that is appropriate to what we are as humans not as man or woman (or all those other genders...).
I would suggest you take steps to strengthen your relationships with the women in your life, so that you can discuss these things with them and they'll know you're genuine in asking about what is appropriate, etc.
I can think of several women I would have zero problem discussing this stuff with, just because they know I'm not out to stir shit up or play devil's advocate. There's trust there to begin with, so there's openness, etc.
I've found this topic to be toxic only on the internet.
Never had this issue in real life. Maybe because I'm not from the US.
However, reading that you had no problem discussing this stuff because you would not "stir shit up or play devils advocate", I'd say you had no discussion at all in the first place.
> ...there are a big difference between approaching someone and sexually harassment.
100% this.
I absolutely believe people can form legitimate and wonderful relationships with coworkers -- even subordinates. Having a kid is awesome and it's great that you found the right person.
But.
There's a clear and obvious difference between building a relationship with someone (even a purely sexual one!) and trying to exploit a power imbalance for free sex. The clearest part of that difference is that building a relationship involves respecting that other person, not just viewing them as an object to be consumed. I suspect you have a tremendous amount of respect for your partner -- and that respect was probably part of the reason you hit it off in the first place.
People who have power need to be especially alert to this. With great power comes great responsibility -- and all that jazz.
Honest question, maybe one best asked to my female friends: at what point does propositioning someone transition from simply not mutual attraction to sexual harassment? The definition is broad and says making "unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks". Is there a line drawn between romantic and sexual propositioning?
I'm not looking to be intentionally obtuse here, i'm more trying to make sense of the legal nature of it.
It has nothing to do with salaries; if you're in a position to make decisions about someone's future (hiring them, firing them, etc.), it's not appropriate.
The word "unwanted" is troubling, because it means the alleged victim gets to personally decide whether the act was illegal/punishable or not, based entirely on their own subjective feelings.
So I guess, if you're good looking, it's legal, and maybe you end up marrying and having children (as people often do in these situations). If you're not good looking, it's a violation and you should be fired/prosecuted.
This definitely isn't a clean or fair way to write or enforce laws or standards for conduct and punishment in the workplace. It might still be necessary and it might be the best we can do, but it's definitely all a big gray area, not just in its interpretation, but in its literal definition ("unwanted").
I wasn't asked a question and didn't provide an answer (or even a proposal), but I understand that having a rational discussion on this topic is difficult or impossible for most people, and I'm sorry if I offended you.
I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this.
And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed. Law isn't software. To a certain degree, it's gray by its very nature.
Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the criminality of a lot of this behavior, but a lot of it definitely feels destructive and immoral.
> It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this.
Looks play a very large role in determining attraction, which in turn plays a large role in determining whether an advance is or isn't "wanted."
The rules as they're currently written therefor apply very unevenly and unfairly. The more attractive you are, the wider your scope of acceptable behavior is. The less attractive you are, the narrower your scope of acceptable behavior is.
If Dave McClure was someone more Sarah Kunst's type, we might be reading an article about their pending nuptials. Instead, we're reading ones about how Dave McClure is a creep who should be added to the sex offender registry.
That's a pretty wide range of possible outcomes for the same behavior.
I think you're missing my point as it pertains to the NYTimes article:
Dave McClure's looks have no bearing on whether the comment "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" is at all appropriate in a professional setting.
It's not.
Actually, I take that back:
It's only in any way appropriate if Sarah and Dave had a pre-existing friendship or relationship of some sort that made that sort of comment permissible. There's zero indication that they did. Dave knew they did not have this kind of relationship but nevertheless put this woman in a position where she was apparently both offended and concerned that it might affect her professional life.
That sucks. Doesn't matter how handsome Dave may or may not be.
IANAL but I saw some comments from one, apparently in USA you have to consistently do unwanted approaches for a long time to be considered sexual harassment.
You should ask your female friends! In all seriousness.
Maybe my basic advice is: Don't "proposition" people. Forget the phrase "hit on." Don't lead with your dick.
Meet people. Learn about them. Establish rapport. Maybe something happens, maybe not. When people are legitimately excited by one another, romance can follow. But be respectful enough to not cause harm. Don't interfere with their work life. Don't accidentally or purposefully threaten their careers or companies. Do no harm. Maybe you miss out on a romantic encounter or two, but you'll be a better person. You might actually get some really cool friendships out of it! And when actual sparks fly, you'll know it and it'll be great.
IANAL, etc. Some common themes of sexual harassment training I've taken:
- Boorish behavior crosses the line the first time. Assume this follows the "would you want it published in the New York Times?" rule of thumb.
- For more ambiguous cases (like asking someone on a date,) it's only OK if you don't actually know if the advance is welcome. Once you get an answer, and it's "no," then anything else is an unwelcome advance. I actually saw someone fired because of this, so don't take it lightly.
- Sexual harassment laws exist to protect people against those with positions of power. One training instructor said, "the reason the laws are designed protect your reports against you, and not the other way around, is because you can fire them."
> Honest question, maybe one best asked to my female friends: at what point does propositioning someone transition from simply not mutual attraction to sexual harassment?
It's fairly obvious and self-evident. I consider myself to be on the autism spectrum, and even I know when a female friend is not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship.
Like the legal test for obscenity: I know it when I see it.
Alcohol is an "organizational lubricant". It's consumption allows people to express controversial opinions that may be needed to be expressed with less potential for blowback due to the setting.
This same plausible deniability also can enable people to be creeps.
I was pretty critical on here just yesterday about Dave McClure. I'd never met him in person but felt like his behavior was unlike the guy I felt I knew from his writings and interviews.
This is heads above the apologies from Justin Caldbeck and Sacca though I wished he'd written it months ago, back when the changes at 500 Startups were first made. It's a good start, but only the beginning.
If these fellas want to show their commitment to changing it will require two things in my opinion:
1. A prolonged period of time without further incident.
2. Perhaps some dedicated effort to supporting, monetarily or otherwise, the elimination of this sort of behavior at the structural level? Start a campaign against sexism/harassment or something? Though to make it not appear disingenuous they ought to do so in a fake name--that's the problem when you're outed as a manipulator in a position of power, literally every subsequent move you make reads like manipulation. The McClure case as described in the NYT article wasn't too extreme and it is possible that some of it was misunderstanding and the he is being honest--it sounds like, for instance, 500 could have decided to end their conversations with Kunst for reasons beyond the message, but we'll never know. For instance I cannot help but feel the majority of this piece is McClure looking out for McClure and not giving a shit about actually being sorry. Of course I don't know that, but trust is difficult to regain.
Granted, McClure's fuck up does jive with the context he describes here, but it just becomes very difficult to believe any of these apology letters are genuine until some time has passed in which that is shown to be the case.
Does a campaign really accomplish anything? Campaigns just seem like a lot of virtue signaling without any actual substance.
How about organizations simply deal with the problem? When there is a complaint, investigate it. If it’s legitimate, discipline the perpetrator. If it’s an unfounded or malicious claim, discipline the accuser.
It’s interesting how SV makes the news for this but sexual harassment/sleeping to the top is standard operating procedure in Hollywood – the VC world makes The NY Times while the everyday stuff that happens in Hollywood would make your skin crawl.
While the SV problem exists, I can’t help but feel there is some agenda happening as other power-centric industries don’t seem to get the ink that SV does.
A campaign to change company HR policies can actually accomplish something. HR policies set expectations. All companies have a policy against dating within the chain of command. I bet that in the future, a lot of companies are also going to have language about not starting relationships with suppliers, customers, investors, etc. Given all of the mess with conferences, that could use a little policy, too...
It's a strange notion that politics in a company are a good thing. Rewarding people for attacking the character of those above them is a race to the bottom. In this case it seems it was a co founder and not at all the situation you describe.
Not sure what to say, or how to make things whole for his victims as there is a very wide spectrum of consequence between 'boys will be boys' and capital punishment.
I really encourage him to think in terms of 'next steps' to make amends when it comes to those affected by his behavior. Anything less, in my completely and totally unqualified opinion, is but self-serving lip service.
I can't help it but I can't find any reason to consider this as having > 0 information. You are absolutely forced and 100% expected to do this in a situation now, right?
I, honestly, find this very disturbing (black mirror way), regardless of my opinion on the matter at hand.
>He doesn't have any power over this woman. She wasn't even hired yet to begin with.
Are you kidding? He has power over her future employment. She wants a job there, and he has the power to give her the job or to reject her. Also, if he were to hire her, he'd have power over her during her entire employment.
>Do you send just one job application when you're trying to find a new job?
No, but if it's a lucrative job that I really want to work at, then the hiring manager definitely has power over me.
>That assumes that transaction is somehow not mutually beneficial.
It is mutually beneficial, but you're probably looking at a 30:1 (or higher) benefit ratio here, in his favor.
> In the end, she's the one that has power over him, as evident from all publicity and his subsequent apology and management changes.
No, she only has power over him insomuch that she can leak any attempts by him to exploit his leverage over her. If he doesn't make any such attempts, she has no power.
This is like a cop beating and arresting someone recording him and, after the tape leaks to the media, defending the cop with "the suspect was the one with power over him because he was filming him, as evident from the aftermath."
>This is not how market works. The transaction you describe is not beneficial, and if that's what you see here, you don't account for all variables (one that people often miss is time, another is investment).
You were suggesting that he's benefitted by her employment and she's benefitted by being employed. I'm saying that balance is very much in his favor. She is much more at his mercy than he's at hers.
>You redefine what having power over someone means.
Then how do you define it? If you come to some sort of "gatekeeper" in a professional setting, like a hiring manager or investor, and they, right off the bat, they say they want to have sex with you, then how is this at all appropriate given they hold the power to fulfill the person's goals? A relationship like that is the definition of holding power over someone.
You misunderstand notions fundamental for what is being discussed in this thread, like power dynamics in various social situations, and confuse inappropriate behavior with honesty. It would be great if you could educate yourself on those things and read through multiple stories and researches on how views like you present affect women's and minorities lifes and careers.
He was aware that she was in the process of interviewing for a job with his company. It is not okay for him to hit on her in that situation, because he has power over her.
The problem here is that they met through the recruitment process and she was being considered for a job. That means that he had power over her which makes this potential sexual harassment. It would be different if they had met in a bar and talked about a job at his company and he had sent that email.
Frankly it reads like some fake outward expression of humility than anything else. The typical bs of: "oops I realized I made a 'mistake'. Let's tell everyone about it and gain some sympathy or accolades".
Is it just me, or is committing public seppuku like this really necessary? If what he did was illegal, he should face prosecution. If he's compelled to apologize and admit his guilt, he should reach out to the people he actually wronged. This kind of public self-flagellation ("I'm such a creep. Please forgive me, world.") feels really over the top, phony, and symbolic.
Totally agree. There's something very weird about this post. If I were truly faced with the sudden realization that I was a deeply shitty person, I can't imagine writing a post like this. I'd be off the grid entirely, probably drinking in a ditch some place. I know I can't speak for others and everyone is different, but the human element is missing here somehow. It does feel very PR.
His career depends very much on his reputation, and his reputation was just dragged through the mud over the past week. It's difficult to know whether this introspection and contrition is genuine, but his post is all about salvaging his name.
It does seem an awful lot like the same old narcissism that probably played a big role in the harassment and maybe even the drive toward entrepreneurship and investing in the first place. They're all just different faces of the same thing.
Business narcissism is a matter of making much of one's own achievements.
Sexual narcissism is a matter of making much of one's prowess/attractiveness (and being tone-deaf to what, to everyone else, would be obvious signs of disinterest on the part of the other party).
Narcissism in disgrace is a matter of making much of one's own mistakes, and one's own suffering. I realize the following is reaching a little bit, like your high school English teacher, but: Notice who appears (twice) in the title.
My reaction would be more similar to yours than Dave's. But he's a public figure, with a blog and twitter and people that know him and stuff, so I guess in that position, people start asking "why aren't you posting something?" rather than "why did/will you post something".
I think it's because he wanted to pepper in details like "It was over drinks and I thought it was social", aka actually defend his actions while renouncing them on the surface. The "upcoming discussions" with 500 associates reads like he's looking to get back onboard.
There are dozens, hundreds of events ranging from meetups to conference parties to pitch events to just about everything else that often involve drinks or going out for drinks immediately before/after with other participants. Whether that's "social" or a "professional" setting is hotly debated but regardless, it's the norm. Throw in social media and it is very easy (still not appropriate) to blur lines.
If you have a job where you are working 12 hour days and weekends, your job is your life. I am actually curious when would an actual appropriate time to ask someone on a date might be - clearly the second someone brings up professional stuff, it should be out the door, but the veil of that can be breached with a simple "what have you been working on lately"
If you're working 12 hour days and having trouble with your social life, the problem is _not_ that it's not OK to hit on women in a professional setting. The problem is that you're working too much.
If you think I'm the one who brought gender into this, you're either ignorant to the structural realities of our industry, or you're willfully being obtuse. If it's the former, let me be the first to tell you that men have most of the power and it's no accident that in the story this post reacts to, it's the men in power committing the abuse and not the other way around. Not to say that women can't be inappropriate at work or whatever, but if you're looking to promote equality, "both sides do bad things" is not the right way to do it in this case.
The structural realities of our industry are that men are the majority at all echelons. Men have most of the power and men are most of the subjects.
Ignoring half of the equation to paint women as a unique victim class is disingenuous, and ironically, it is a power move. Topping from the bottom.
HR taking the company's side... A superior leveraging their position to extract concessions rather than engage a person on equal ground... These are universal problems. Twisting everything into a gender issue because of sexuality involves the automatic assumption that a woman's sexual virtue is something special and any other abuse of power is just not as big a deal. A very gender essentialist and conservative position.
As an actual leftie, it should make me sad, but tbh it amuses me to no end in its absurdity. In the name of progressive politics, all sorts of traditional views are being promoted. Men should be chivalrous, women need protection, public shaming is good, morality must be enforced by a clerical class, with everyone else kissing the ring in acquiescence. Bizarre.
As if politics are far more built-in than we want to admit, and freedom and tolerance can become labels for the exact opposite.
Are we demonising specific behaviours, or power imbalances in general, or just one gender?
Do exploitative power imbalances fade into political and economic background noise when they're "only" about money and/or hierarchy, and no dating or sex are involved?
Do "uncomfortable feelings" around dating and sex have a paradoxically privileged place in this discourse, over "uncomfortable feelings" caused by more overt forms of verbal, financial, political, or legal abuse - and if so, why?
> when would an actual appropriate time to ask someone on a date might be
If you are in a position of power over another person, I would say there isn't an appropriate time. The number of hours you work isn't really relevant.
Put it this way: when is an appropriate time for a college professor (that works long hours!) to ask a student out on a date?
> when is an appropriate time for a college professor (that works long hours!) to ask a student out on a date?
A student generally or one of his students? There is a difference. And not too long ago a professor dating a student that he/she didn't have power over was not that uncommon.
> > And not too long ago a professor dating a student that he/she didn't have power over was not that uncommon.
> There are a lot of things that are not uncommon, but are still totally inappropriate.
Sorry! I was responding late at night, and, even though I quoted it, I totally missed tanderson92 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14680337) 's caveat "that he/she didn't have power over", which, of course, totally changes the ethics.
(It still doesn't seem persuasive to me to argue the ethics of a behaviour in terms of what used to be common, since it is still true that a lot of awful things used to be, and still are, common; but my comment was mostly based on a misinterpretation.)
You don't have an answer because you're not applying hard logic and rules but slippery moral constructs that revolve around the right people/outlets signaling that you need to be outraged.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone on a date. If they say no? Cool. Yes? Awesome. The act itself is not criminal, actions taken based on that (like retaliation) are.
Demonizing basic human behavior has no place in western society.
"If you are in a position of power over another person, I would say there isn't an appropriate time."
Is neither illogical nor slippery moral construct. If you disagree with the rule, you should find better argument then just calling it "not hard logic enough".
On related note, if hiring manager asks for dates regularly, any hired women will be assumed less competent and assumed to sleep her way to success - no matter what her response. It is not like these accusations were far away for good looking women, they are pretty much guaranteed in this setup.
If you make more money than another person or can possibly benefit them in some way or the person is attracted to you then you are in a position of power. You're argument is absurd and out of touch with the human nature.
> "It was over drinks and I thought it was social"
It is horrifying that world leaders and public figures use this kind of excuse, which is supposed to somehow give a pass, and then we see it trickle down to the man on the street.
Really, the public figures should be prosecuted and made an example of, so that is the example for the average man. Anything less is unacceptable.
I think his use of "I fucked up" while on the one hand it makes it seem like he's acknowledging the seriousness of the incidents, on the other hand it signals that he still has an issue with social convention and knowing what is appropriate and not.
One does not go up to someone you owe deference and include the word "fuck" specially given the kinds of allegations and confirmation, in your apology. Understand social convention and understand respect. It's like he's apologizing to one of his "bros".
I looked him up on YouTube. This is simply how he communicates. I guess he started out thinking it would make him sound decisive and effective and now it's internalized. The reason he does it is that he's insecure, like a man speaking with a lower tone than is really his own.
What's more horrifying, that people are human and make mistakes, or that if you're "important" what would normally be one-off mistakes forgotten and buried become career-defining events thanks to the collective shaming capacity of the internet.
Actually, one-off mistakes for the poor are not forgotten and buried, they translate to brutal imprisonment and abuse for years. The wealthy (i.e. "important") get away with permanent collective shaming and it's a complete joke compared to the horrors the poor have to face.
I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate. I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong.
There isn't any equivocating there. Dave acknowledged what he did was wrong, and took responsibility. I'm not saying he's some sort of great guy for apologizing, and he deserves to face the consequences of his actions. I am arguing that if people sincerely acknowledge their mistakes, and take steps to make amends, demands of "you're apologizing too much/not enough/wrong" are just vengeance and are not actually going to fix the problem in the long run.
It wasn't though - he specifically noted his actions were wrong every time. It was very specifically an apology for his actions, not for offense caused alone.
Come on. All these guys who claim they are so smart and well rounded now all of a sudden are doing "I'm Sorry" posts as if they didn't know. WTF - of course they all were aware. Its easy acting all matter of fact and smart with everything else and then "I'm Sorry". Refer them to a public prosecutor because examples are needed for this to stop. We need some examples to be made.
This post is a perfect example of what I've mentioned elsewhere.
If you ever find yourself in this person's shoes (innocent or guilty) you have nothing to gain by this sort of public display of remorse/sepukku as others have called it.
This type of angry, vitriolic, hate-filled-person will condemn you no matter if your apologies are sincere or not. The only logical move is to deny, people like the poster above will never believe you anyways but they're unwinable anyways.
As long as leftism rules the cultural zeitgeist apologizing for bad behavior will never be enough to matter.
Apologies like McClure are insincere because his behavior has likely been going on for years; targeting many many women (at least 6 according to his accuser); and because McClure knew then, as he does now, that he was in the wrong.
Why do you think he is apologizing? Do you really think he is sorry or just sorry he got caught? I'm sure he is sincere, sincere that he feels bad that he got caught and is now suffering the consequences. This is just like the murderer who cries crocodile tears during sentencing.
Occam's razor. A devil does not become a saint overnight.
I have been asking the same questions as you reading this thread, but I didn't jump to a conclusion anywhere near as readily as you have. There are far too many unknowns about the situation for me to do that.
How do you get away with asserting that he has likely done this "many many" times?
I do agree that an apology under these circumstances is not ideal, but what should he do, exactly? Dig a hole and jump in? Not respond at all? Just say it is true and leave it at that? Any response is going to be subject to dissatisfaction from some part of the mob that we are all part of.
I think the key is to realize that at some point in your life, you were the devil, whether your transgressions were subject to public scrutiny or not. Have some sympathy for the devil and do not be the one who casts a stone.
> I think the key is to realize that at some point in your life, you were the devil, whether your transgressions were subject to public scrutiny or not. Have some sympathy for the devil and do not be the one who casts a stone.
In regards to his apology, I thought the qualifiers were offensive and it made me think he was being insincere. I see your point about the pitchforks and mob mentality and I see how my original comment can contribute to that.
That said, I also fee that as a society we have to emphatically reject this type of behavior, especially perpetuated by people with power/influence/resources against those without. We jail people in this country for far less.
He doesn't have anything to gain, but his company does. They don't need the messy distraction of this incident ruining their business. This is their attempt to broom it, and they may end up brooming him as well.
>Refer them to a public prosecutor because examples are needed for this to stop. We need some examples to be made.
Setting aside the fact there's nothing to prosecute in most of the cases, I'm curious why you think making examples of people is more important than punishing them in proportion to their offenses.
There's what's legally required, and there's what's morally required. Here's a guy who did some serious soul-searching and said "holy shit, maybe I'm wrong on a very bad way". It's about doing more than what he is bare minimum allowed to get away with.
He's taking personal responsibility for his actions, openly and publicly. That takes a level of maturity and openness that I know is hard, and I fully respect.
All that he missed, in my opinion, is what his next steps are, and how going forward he can assure that this won't happen again. It sounds like he does have plans, but a good apology goes "I was wrong; here's why/how I was wrong; here's what I'm going to do in the future so that I don't repeat the mistake".
But it won't be enough, it won't be seen as positive, and like half the comments in this thread show once you're outed as a PC heretic you're a non-entity.
Read through the smarmy "he doesn't mean it" comments all over this thread to see what I mean.
This culture is toxic in the tech community and needs to stop.
I think it was a great PR move. I don't know the depth of the situation but if he simply said "idk if I should hire you or hit on you", then I think most people are going to read the apology coming away with the belief he is a victim losing his company for a trifle. I did at least. If this was the extent, and he didn't touch her or send lewd photos, frankly I'm angry for him. A society that requires this level of mea culpa for telling a mutual acquintance that was potentially interested in a job over drinks that you were interested in seeing them socially is fucking baffling.
Conversely, (again based on my less than complete knowledge of situation) it seems equally rediculous to say that she made unwanted advances to 500 Startups. They were in a social setting and it isn't clear they were hiring for something she qualified for. Should she apologize for leveraging her relationship with his acquintance to use a social situation professionally? Of course not! Dave did a borderline unethical thing in that scenario and based on the NYT article which is scant with details, I'd at most email her an apology for misreading the situation and being unprofessional
It depends on his motivation, and several hypothetical motivations could fit here; Public shaming (voluntary or forced), aiming to deliberately burn/restore brigdes, lawyer advice or even e-fishing. Is not easy to eval his real expectations.
About the public seppuku question, maybe for a while but nah, for some reason everybody loves when other people discloses a hidden dark side and face public ashaming. Is something about being a social species, probably. We love gossip.
Counterpoint: bowing to the collective social shaming buys the individual no "points", as is evidenced by this tread full of vultures questioning his motives.
Instead we've created a culture where the only logical move is to deny deny deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence because the only thing the modern left hates more than "creep" is a loser.
>Counterpoint: bowing to the collective social shaming buys the individual no "points", as is evidenced by this tread full of vultures questioning his motives.
The cynics in this thread (myself included) are not the target of this self-flagellation.
Moving past the judgements regarding the sincerity of his apology, it'd be interesting to learn the various constiuences' ideas of acceptable outcomes at this point.
Counterpoint: his apology was not a calculated tactic to garner goodwill for nefarious purposes so he therefore does not care what "points" he will, by your judgement, gain. It was an honest, human attempt to do the right thing. Or was it? Perhaps you're suggesting he's incapable of even having a desire to do the right thing and instead is totally consumed by selfish sociopathy? It's a serious and damning psychoanalytic allegation to make, not one that I would make from afar. Perhaps you think everyone behaves this way as some sort of justification for his actions? Happily I'll inform you that they don't. What you call "logic" (i.e. pausing, removing all thoughts about morality from your head and taking a moment to refuse to think of others as human beings worthy of consideration and respect, rather, only considering what you personally will gain from a given situation and letting this heuristic drive your decisions completely) describes very few human interactions.
The problem with situations like this is there is a lot of context we are not seeing. Maybe its a very genuine apology. Maybe its an attempt at damage limitation. Maybe he was really pushy when hitting on the women and wouldn't take no as an answer. Maybe he was polite and took no for an answer the first time. Probably why the situation is fairly controversial as there are so many unknowns that would make the situation seem better or worse if we actually knew the full story.
>Is it just me, or is committing public seppuku like this really necessary?
I suppose he felt this 'public seppuku' was necessary because a) he was called out by name in the NY Times article and b) he wanted to put it on record that the woman he hit on wasn't rejected from his company for rejecting him. I suspect (b) is the true motive, and without a certain level of self-flagellation it wouldn't be socially acceptable to state that fact.
Nailed it. This is thinly-veiled damage control. While he may genuinely be sorry, his plea for recompense should be directed privately at those his actions affected. A self-effacing blog post like this reads to me as code for "please don't blacklist me in the valley".
We have been inundated by posts like these lately as these creepy dudes have been outed. I have felt as you do on several of them. IMO, this one comes the closest to being a real apology. Doesn't make up for what he did, not by a mile. Doesn't mean he should ever be allowed to be in a position of authority over women again. But for me it was a positive step.
Seppuku is a good description, to me it reads like a modern version of socialist "self criticism" [1]. Which is an undignified, forced way of subdueing the already broken "enemy of the people".
Or he realized he has done something wrong and wants to be clear that's not who he wants to be?
I was out drinking with friends from my University course, back in the day, and made some statement like "uh, well don't be fags about it" - a hangover from my days at a boys only secondary school where "gay" was the most common term for bad and "fag" was the most common insult.
Now, I have no issues with people's sexuality and would never want to offend anyone - but I was drunk and years of using the term as a generic negative insult just lead to me using the term habitually. The issue was, it wasn't just my close friends, but a larger group of people I knew less well.
One of them made the point that he was Bi and didn't appreciate the comment, and I wanted to curl up and die - instantly I had to try and explain myself and apologise. How I acted didn't represent my views, it isn't who I want to be, and it's not how I'd want to interact with anyone. I put that guy - and anyone else there - in a shitty situation and while he was fortunately understanding, and spoke up about it, someone could have just heard me and felt a bit of rejection from the world.
Now, you can argue about the sincerity of this guy's apology, and how possible it is to repeatedly do something and do the things he did in the context he did, etc..., but there comes a point at which if the message is good - which this apology is - it's a flat statement that his behavior was wrong, flat out, which is the right place to start from at least, I think you have to give some level of benefit of the doubt.
People do fuck up. Consequences for that are fine, but you have to try to give people routes to hold up their hands and reject things they did, that has value.
To note, obviously my usage of the terms during my schooling years was just as wrong, but I was a child and it's harder to judge myself at that age because of the environment and lack of knowledge I had at the time. Something I still regret deeply though - it must have been incredibly hard to be gay with so much constant negativity surrounding it in that environment.
> How I acted didn't represent my views, it isn't who I want to be, and it's not how I'd want to interact with anyone.
I'm sorry, but this does not make sense to me. Of course what you said and how you acted represented your views at the time. It wasn't who you wanted to be, but it was who you were. You absolutely used the term fag as an insult and you meant it.
I'm posting this not to judge you or be self-righteous about it, but in the hope of gaining some understanding. I have seen it happen far too many times: a person's racist/sexist words go viral on social media or in the press, and they reflexively publish "That is not my view or a reflection of who I am. Everyone who is close to me knows this". This disassociation puzzles me greatly. How is it that you have the conviction to do/say something and then disavow it when challenged?
In an emotionally-charged situation, it's easy to forget that curse words have an actual meaning other than being an insult. In the situation where your views on what's acceptable have changed, like Latty described, you can slip into old verbal habits pretty easily without realizing it.
> In the situation where your views on what's acceptable have changed, like Latty described, you can slip into old verbal habits pretty easily without realizing it.
I fully agree, however, I think that's just your views slipping out. You might not want to be that way, but you are that way, possibly because of how you were raised or some other factor you didn't have control over. Saying "that is not a true reflection of who I really am" seems ingenious to me.
Except I didn't (and still don't, of course) hold any negative views about gay people. I'll make the same analogy as I did in my other comment - people use "dumb" to mean stupid all of the time. Do those people harbour subconscious anti-mute sentiments, or are they just picking a word that they think of as meaning "stupid"?
Likewise, at the time, I could have replaced "fag" with "dick" with no qualms at the time. It was an insult, and it's meaning didn't matter to me. (Until I was reminded of it's meaning and harm I was causing, which made me stop using it).
I guess I'd describe it as - I'd become desensitized to the meaning of the term and used it not expecting it to cause any harm. You can say that surely it's obvious that it causes harm, but it wasn't obvious to me until the described moment that I was propagating this negative idea of homosexuality. When I did notice that, I stopped.
Except I didn't hold the view that being gay was a negative thing, rather I had gotten so used to the terms being thrown around that I used them in that way despite not agreeing with that. It's similar to how I can use "dumb" to describe someone as stupid without believing that people who can't speak are stupid. I meant to insult the person (and if I'd chosen another word, that would have been fine as it was clearly intended as a friendly, joking thing), but I didn't intend to imply that being gay was a bad thing.
It's a fine line that mostly relies on knowing my own intent - and I make no reservations in stating that whatever my intent, I know I caused harm at the time and I actively worked to ensure that I don't use "gay" and "fag" in that way, because it does have those effects.
But, I really appreciate it. In many situations, as you can see from other threads here, there is doubt in a lot of people's minds whether there's really a story here, whether the person was wrongly accused, whether it's as bad as people make it out to be, etc.
In this case, he's making it clear that, yes, he really was the wrong party and really did wrong things. I think we should take his statement at face value, and be thankful we have an example of a clear-cut wrong, so anybody who is unsure just how bad the harassment situation really is can point to this as an example.
when this happens it goes beyond just being a creep at work. the people you do this may fear retaliation for reporting the incident, work with you after (he still works at the company), and face down skeptics who can belittle what happened
this post shows some thoughtfulness, but my reaction is "stay far away from this person and this company"
You have to assume all of these apologies are written with the help of PR firms and crisis management teams. Sacca’s was the most obviously phony, which makes sense since he’s trying to protect his new TV career.
There are way more of these creeps than these stories will let out. It really depends how well connected you are to the media machine in SV. Binary Capital and 500 are both too small and irrelevant to cause problems for the reporters breaking these stories, but what about Peter Thiel’s friends? You can’t even talk about them without worrying about going bankrupt.
There are a lot of women out there who are watching these stories and saying absolutely nothing, because they know the odds are still stacked against them. Exposing a couple mid tier guys doesn’t mean anything.
It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech. This does create an incentive for women to play a little loose with their professional behavior, and we only see one side of the story here.
No, I don't mean to excuse McClure's behavior entirely; however, the fact that many of these women did not immediately cease contact after innapropriate advances, and continues to take advantage of funds and mentorship, suggests that these women are at least partly culpable. This isn't victim blaming; when you have hundreds of applicants to choose from/compete with, it isn't a surprise that people use/accept sexual flirtation (and sometimes favors) to get ahead/judge applicants.
People have been selling sex for thousands of years. The only novelty here is the outrage.
Yes, you are victim blaming. You are immediately assuming with no evidence that she's some kind of conniving she-devil.
They are not in tech. They are in venture capital, and it's more challenging to get a position at a VC firm than it is to get a job at a startup as an engineer.
> It sounds like people are underestimating the pervasive lonileness that even successful young males experience in tech.
And again this comes up every single time. Just because someone is lonely didn't mean they're entitled to sexually harass someone else. Nor does being horny justify it. Nor does being angry justify violence.
Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment is exactly why there is a law there protecting people from it. In part, it's illegal to put people in a position where they have to make that choice.
>Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment
And what of the situation in which women continue to associate with their harassers? Do they truely have no liability? Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? Why does this have to be such an absurdly one sided topic?
And yes, being lonely to the point of depression is indeed justification for making initial advances which may be misconstrued as sexual harassment, when monetary or other favors are accepted. If they do not cease when identified as unwelcome, they become a problem, sure. But the onus is also on the victim to communicate, and continued association is not only a mixed message, the victim begins to take advantage of the sexual tension by leading the harasser on and continuing to accept business favors.
In our rush to protect these women, whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless, we only consider the imbalance of power and totally ignore the imbalance of sexual capital that is rife for exploitation especially by females.
I also do not believe that down votes are designed to signal disagreement.
> Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead?
It's not impossible to consider this, but this isn't what is being discussed.
> and continued association is not only a mixed message,
And again you keep missing the point. Continued associated is a result of a business relationship. That's exactly the point. By continuing a professional relationship with someone does not mean you are consenting to further sexual advances that you've already declined.
> whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless
Again noone is painting anyone as defenseless. You're view of this entire picture is skewed. It is about being placed in situations that people shouldn't have to be placed it. Or make decisions they shouldn't have to make. That doesn't make anyone defenseless. Victims of sexual harassment (whether men or women) have agency in life, it's just situations that they shouldn't be put in.
I find that he mentions the situation occurred "over drinks" a way to make it seem less innappropriate. It's pretty simple, don't hit on women you have a business relationship with. I've seen it happen on multiple occasions and I cringe every time.
It's not inherently wrong, or something inherently taboo. (We've all been told not to stick our pens in the company ink, but... time and time again we also see examples of happily married couples who met on the job... Bill Gates' wife worked for Microsoft, The Obamas met while they were working together, Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively met on the set of Green Lantern...)
So it feels like the message here is, "It's fine when it works, and it's totally not fine when it doesn't work." The only way to know if it's fine is to ask. It's not really something you can make universal rules for. To each their own, right? (I would say a wedding ring means someone is off limits, but affairs happen all the time too.)
Point being, it has to be something more than, "It's OK to hit on someone if they are attracted to you." I think hitting on someone is inherently a compliment. But if they say no, and you try again, and they still say no, well probably don't try a third time. This guy is apologizing for being called a creep after hitting on someone once... man, that's rough. You don't know until you try.
There needs to be a little more flex here, it can't just come down to, "Anyone who we don't feel attraction to should be fired if they pay us a poorly worded compliment or tell a bad joke." Stalkers, sure... people who try and leverage their position in the company to get laid (with the implication), yeah... but just some guy who tries to clumsily flirt with a girl and can't play it smooth because he's fundamentally not a player and actually likes her... come on, cut that guy some slack.
There's always power imbalances though. Social, knowledge, financial... can you only hit on people whose looks are on par with your own, and who have the same amount of money you do, and same education, same experience, knowledge, social network... blah blah. Always going to be a power imbalance of some sort between people.
If I'm a rich man and I ask a poor woman out, her answer actually might have a much bigger impact on her economic well-being than if I were an employer interviewing her for a job.
Does that make it wrong for rich men to ask poor women out?
Much of the issue isn't just "meeting through work", but the power imbalance. Of your examples, only Gates includes this imbalance.
I don't know the specifics of their situation, but I'd hope that he recused himself from being directly involved in her performance reviews etc., whereas McClure was explicitly tying his attraction to the hiring decision - "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you."
I'd be more worried about the guy who she says no to who keeps coming. Poor judgement... maybe, but who knows what signals he was reading into the situation at the time. He just sounds like a guy who doesn't have a lot of experience with women, and he tried to make a joke and it didn't go well. Now he's gotta read about his failed flirtation attempts in the NYT. That's gotta be rough.
If he was overt, or repetitive, or really sleazy... yeah sure, I'm not on his side. But to me this just comes off as a guy who hit on someone who was out of his physical league and she didn't appreciate it (probably also because she didn't get offered a job). I don't think Dave McClure deserves to be crucified over this.
Fair, it's late and I was just trying to clarify my point.
This whole thread is toxic.
Nothing but polarized opinions. I'd like it if there was more middle ground, and a lot less emotionally-charged up/down votes. When the points start feeling like Reddit, it's a huge turnoff.
Meeting a coworker (even a boss!) socially, having drinks, escalating into a relationship - no problem. Normally-socialized people can do this because they can make these decisions over time, being careful to give the other person outs along the way.
McClure was basically honking his horn while driving his Tesla down the street, hollering "nice tits!" At best, that is anti-social, rude and offputting. But to do it while someone is in the midst of applying for a job can't be seen as anything other than an abuse of power to get what you want.
How would you feel if McClure gay propositioned YOU while trying to apply for a job? You want to work at this VC fund but before you can get your foot in the door he says you are a super hot stud and and he wants to take you home. For a man, it would be awkward as hell but easy to deflect. And you would probably rather not work there (this is where it is bad for business, not just McClure's penis).
As am attractive woman, this shit happens ALL THE TIME. Please stop defending it as "normal animal behavior" or whatever. Using power to get laid is fine if someone is attracted to that. But using power OVER someone is coersion. Anyone over the age of 13 should be able to figure this out.
> How would you feel if McClure gay propositioned YOU while trying to apply for a job? You want to work at this VC fund but before you can get your foot in the door he says you are a super hot stud and and he wants to take you home. For a man, it would be awkward as hell but easy to deflect. And you would probably rather not work there (this is where it is bad for business, not just McClure's penis).
When I was in my 20s I had an older female boss hit on me all the time. It made me not want to work with her. And as soon as I could move projects I did. I didn't worry about it past that. It never occurred to me that I should be upset or hurt but her behavior. I just thought she was pathetic.
I've had a gay boss, and would joke with him about how many blowjobs I would need to give to get out of a deadline... point being, maybe it wasn't "appropriate" but we had good rapport. You can laugh about stupid stuff. It's when people get all worked up and start wanting to tell others how to live that I think the real problem kicks in.
> As am attractive woman, this shit happens ALL THE TIME. Please stop defending it as "normal animal behavior" or whatever. Using power to get laid is fine if someone is attracted to that. But using power OVER someone is coersion. Anyone over the age of 13 should be able to figure this out.
I haven't read much about this story past what I saw on HN, but it just made McClure out to be a guy who was super awkward around women. Not in an aggressive predatory way, more just a sad geeky sort of "I haven't gotten laid in a long long time..." sort of way. There's always a power dynamic... some people can offer a job, or more social connections, or physical attraction, or money... it's not just that the guy had power over the girl -- clearly if he's feeling compelled to hit on the girl she had power over him too.
I get having a raging boner for a girl, but there are so many better way to handle this with a shred of empathy. First, he could wait until she is hired/not hired to proposition her. Second, he could simply ask her on a date, prefaced with "this has nothing to do with our business relationship".
And I don't think she has any "hot girl" power over him. It sounds like he did this all the time, to any woman he wanted to bang. He wasn't pining over her, he didn't want to get to know her. To me it sounds like a short jump from this to grabbing them by the pussy because what are they going to do about it?
I for one am happy to see a true apology here, not an "I'm sorry if I offended you" statement that so many people make the days.
This has all the points of a proper apology: an understanding of the wrong committed, acknowledging that it was his fault, and demonstrating commitment to change. It also appears to be sincere
It's a qualified apology. I dislike how he not-so-subtly tries to justify his actions by painting a context that delegitimizes Sarah's claims.
It's worth noting that Sarah claims that many other women contacted her with similar stories of harassment, the fact that all of them are also women of color is especially telling (as were all of Caldbeck's victims).
I mean if he wants to bring up contextual details, maybe McClure should mention that like Caldbeck, he is also married. So how more scummy can you be? A sexist harasser and an adulterer. These guys are only sorry they got caught and are now back pedaling to save some face.
People need to understand that this type of behavior causes terrible damage on the victims which can last for years and often leave permanent scars. So it's especially fucked up and unjust that people like McClure and Caldbeck, when caught, can simply make a half-assed -- and in the case of Caldbeck and Sacca, narcissistic -- apology; lay low for a few months; and then jump right back as if nothing happened.
For fuck's sake one of the LPs at Binary knew about Caldbeck's reputation and harassment issues and still invested.
Aw man, there's no contact info in your profile :/ Could you drop me a mail with your details, so I can ensure I never end up working in the same environment as you.
But to differentiate ourselves from animals, we have this thing called 'civility'. We have the capacity to rationally think about our actions and discard primate style behaviours that do not function in modern society.
Not too many city dwelling men use their narrow focal vision and instinctive ability to calculate parabolic maths and wind speed to throw spears at dinner.
That means they should also curb their instinctive impulses to club the nearest female and drag them back to the cave by her hair...
One thing I'd like to see from these people on the inside is some sense of where this comes from. Where did they learn it? What does it say about others in the VC club who saw something and said nothing? This stuff has obviously been condoned for years and years and years, he should help dismantle it more than falling on his own sword. Reveal the secret handshake(s).
452 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 305 ms ] threadHopefully this is the start of a groundswell trend of traits such as 'accountability' and 'taking responsibility for your actions' becoming fashionable and an expected part of human behaviour again.
Apologies aren't the same as reparations, of course, and should be followed up by that.
It sounds like he's stepping back and taking a very hard look at his actions and behavior. Hopefully he improves and doesn't do the same in the future.
Also, hopefully other similarly situated people see this and learn from his (now very public) mistakes.
I think it's PR, but that doesn't automatically mean he isn't genuinely apologizing. The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you are powerful man or woman, you should be aware that people who know who you are treat you differently. This Dave McClure guy actually thought all these women were into him purely because he was some amazing dude and not because he could finance their dreams. What a moron
My best friends have been those that I've worked with and never once has that been a problem for me because I know how to be an appropriate human being.
No, blackmail is possible also. Obviously, you have to be worth blackmailing, but some people have some low standards for rewards.
For other, maybe in this case, having people around you to get you away from trouble is also an excellent idea. In a position of power, a person should also be conscious to the effects on all the people who depend on you. If you have a drinking problem, perhaps a constant sober coach is a good idea. Having a person to make sure you don't get personal with other might follow along those lines.
Like a lot of things in life, it is a two front war. Are you protected against some external agent, and are you protected from yourself. Some will only need one type of protection, but if you are in a position where people depend on you, then you should be honest, at least with yourself, and make some good choices.
Does it matter? The fact is, if you are a man in a position of power, never being alone in a room with a woman you don't know very well, is starting to sound like a reasonable strategy.
People in other threads have said, that limiting your one-on-ones with women, inhibits their opportunities (perhaps we should not have one-on-ones at all to make that fair). But when there are other people in your life that you need to "protect" from any scandals, I really can't blame these men for picking their loved ones and reputations over "social justice".
This is one of those "going to get worse before it gets better" things.
That is not a good thing.
I agree its not a good thing, but its the way of a world where accusation is treated as fact and put on the front page and the retraction is somewhere inside the paper in small type.
People usually fall for these lies (whether of their own invention or others) because they want to believe. It's more like a cognitive bias than a lack of IQ.
Some work environments are genuinely conducive to forming friendships and others are not. I haven't befriended coworkers at every job, but my closest friendships have all been from the workplace since leaving school.
The real issue is a power imbalance, but this issue also exists in other settings as well.
Alcohol inhibits your judgement, but many people can successfully consume alcohol without adverse social consequences.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-m...
You know it used to be that men and women didn't work together, right? Like, this idea of being able to date at work has only been around for about 50 years or so, while the human race has been around for thousands. Somehow we figured out how to reproduce in the West without a "closed caste system" just fine. You can too, without dating anyone at your job.
People, colleagues and equals at work should be able to interact socially, over drinks and even hook up. People are human and sexual attraction is natural. I don't think we should try to pretend it does not exist and that we should remove it from the workplace.
What should not happen is people not knowing boundaries or social convention. People should know how to act and should know how not to act -even when drunk.
I don't think workplaces should be sterile, asocial places which ignore human predisposition to social interaction.
I'm very confused by this question. My view of whether someone is a person is not mitigated by them acting profession.
Did I miss something here? My understanding from what McClure wrote is that he was interacting with someone who wasn't a co-worker.
In any event, I'm not sure that "a job you control" was the case here: It sounds like he (quite rightly) handed that off to someone else and had nothing to do with the hiring decision. It does seem like he should have been clearer to the applicant about not being part of that decision, though.
Yes but you have to understand that we humans have a incredible high drive to reproduce, and many successful couples forms in the work environment. I have a child with a coworker.
Sexual approaches do happen in those kinds of environments but there are a big difference between approaching someone and sexually harassment. Modern women specially millennials tend to see any kind of approach (specially from unattractive males) as harassment and this is not the case, not even legally.
The power imbalance and lack of non-work relationship are key.
McClure had no personal relationship with this woman. They weren't friends, and they hadn't met in a non-professional setting.
Furthermore, he's in a position to make decisions about her future. In that situation, it's inappropriate to make the first move, because the other person will feel pressured to reciprocate, even if she doesn't want to.
This is very similar to the way professors aren't allowed to have sexual relationships with students in their classes, but students can have sexual relationships with each other.
I came to the conclusion that the topic has become too toxic to be discussed seriously. Especially based on a actual case. I just hope this electrified field will return to a base where everybody can talk seriously about it. With the aim being a solution that is appropriate to what we are as humans not as man or woman (or all those other genders...).
I can think of several women I would have zero problem discussing this stuff with, just because they know I'm not out to stir shit up or play devil's advocate. There's trust there to begin with, so there's openness, etc.
However, reading that you had no problem discussing this stuff because you would not "stir shit up or play devils advocate", I'd say you had no discussion at all in the first place.
100% this.
I absolutely believe people can form legitimate and wonderful relationships with coworkers -- even subordinates. Having a kid is awesome and it's great that you found the right person.
But.
There's a clear and obvious difference between building a relationship with someone (even a purely sexual one!) and trying to exploit a power imbalance for free sex. The clearest part of that difference is that building a relationship involves respecting that other person, not just viewing them as an object to be consumed. I suspect you have a tremendous amount of respect for your partner -- and that respect was probably part of the reason you hit it off in the first place.
People who have power need to be especially alert to this. With great power comes great responsibility -- and all that jazz.
You can't just say something like this without backing it up. Anecdotes don't count.
I'm not looking to be intentionally obtuse here, i'm more trying to make sense of the legal nature of it.
So I guess, if you're good looking, it's legal, and maybe you end up marrying and having children (as people often do in these situations). If you're not good looking, it's a violation and you should be fired/prosecuted.
This definitely isn't a clean or fair way to write or enforce laws or standards for conduct and punishment in the workplace. It might still be necessary and it might be the best we can do, but it's definitely all a big gray area, not just in its interpretation, but in its literal definition ("unwanted").
> I wasn't asked a question...
Anyway:
You didn't offend me at all.
I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this.
And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed. Law isn't software. To a certain degree, it's gray by its very nature.
Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the criminality of a lot of this behavior, but a lot of it definitely feels destructive and immoral.
Looks play a very large role in determining attraction, which in turn plays a large role in determining whether an advance is or isn't "wanted."
The rules as they're currently written therefor apply very unevenly and unfairly. The more attractive you are, the wider your scope of acceptable behavior is. The less attractive you are, the narrower your scope of acceptable behavior is.
If Dave McClure was someone more Sarah Kunst's type, we might be reading an article about their pending nuptials. Instead, we're reading ones about how Dave McClure is a creep who should be added to the sex offender registry.
That's a pretty wide range of possible outcomes for the same behavior.
Dave McClure's looks have no bearing on whether the comment "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" is at all appropriate in a professional setting.
It's not.
Actually, I take that back:
It's only in any way appropriate if Sarah and Dave had a pre-existing friendship or relationship of some sort that made that sort of comment permissible. There's zero indication that they did. Dave knew they did not have this kind of relationship but nevertheless put this woman in a position where she was apparently both offended and concerned that it might affect her professional life.
That sucks. Doesn't matter how handsome Dave may or may not be.
Maybe my basic advice is: Don't "proposition" people. Forget the phrase "hit on." Don't lead with your dick.
Meet people. Learn about them. Establish rapport. Maybe something happens, maybe not. When people are legitimately excited by one another, romance can follow. But be respectful enough to not cause harm. Don't interfere with their work life. Don't accidentally or purposefully threaten their careers or companies. Do no harm. Maybe you miss out on a romantic encounter or two, but you'll be a better person. You might actually get some really cool friendships out of it! And when actual sparks fly, you'll know it and it'll be great.
- Boorish behavior crosses the line the first time. Assume this follows the "would you want it published in the New York Times?" rule of thumb.
- For more ambiguous cases (like asking someone on a date,) it's only OK if you don't actually know if the advance is welcome. Once you get an answer, and it's "no," then anything else is an unwelcome advance. I actually saw someone fired because of this, so don't take it lightly.
- Sexual harassment laws exist to protect people against those with positions of power. One training instructor said, "the reason the laws are designed protect your reports against you, and not the other way around, is because you can fire them."
It's fairly obvious and self-evident. I consider myself to be on the autism spectrum, and even I know when a female friend is not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship.
Like the legal test for obscenity: I know it when I see it.
This same plausible deniability also can enable people to be creeps.
This is heads above the apologies from Justin Caldbeck and Sacca though I wished he'd written it months ago, back when the changes at 500 Startups were first made. It's a good start, but only the beginning.
If these fellas want to show their commitment to changing it will require two things in my opinion:
1. A prolonged period of time without further incident.
2. Perhaps some dedicated effort to supporting, monetarily or otherwise, the elimination of this sort of behavior at the structural level? Start a campaign against sexism/harassment or something? Though to make it not appear disingenuous they ought to do so in a fake name--that's the problem when you're outed as a manipulator in a position of power, literally every subsequent move you make reads like manipulation. The McClure case as described in the NYT article wasn't too extreme and it is possible that some of it was misunderstanding and the he is being honest--it sounds like, for instance, 500 could have decided to end their conversations with Kunst for reasons beyond the message, but we'll never know. For instance I cannot help but feel the majority of this piece is McClure looking out for McClure and not giving a shit about actually being sorry. Of course I don't know that, but trust is difficult to regain.
Granted, McClure's fuck up does jive with the context he describes here, but it just becomes very difficult to believe any of these apology letters are genuine until some time has passed in which that is shown to be the case.
How about organizations simply deal with the problem? When there is a complaint, investigate it. If it’s legitimate, discipline the perpetrator. If it’s an unfounded or malicious claim, discipline the accuser.
It’s interesting how SV makes the news for this but sexual harassment/sleeping to the top is standard operating procedure in Hollywood – the VC world makes The NY Times while the everyday stuff that happens in Hollywood would make your skin crawl.
While the SV problem exists, I can’t help but feel there is some agenda happening as other power-centric industries don’t seem to get the ink that SV does.
Edit: Re-reading I can't tell what his title was, only that she was CEO after the fact.
she was not a neutral party and he should not have gone to her for advice.
I really encourage him to think in terms of 'next steps' to make amends when it comes to those affected by his behavior. Anything less, in my completely and totally unqualified opinion, is but self-serving lip service.
I, honestly, find this very disturbing (black mirror way), regardless of my opinion on the matter at hand.
Not remotely. Just look at any of the recent Fox News harassment scandals, or literally anything involving the current POTUS.
In fact, if you can't do both, it's you who cannot survive in today's world. It's time for us to all get better at being more aware of our position.
Are you kidding? He has power over her future employment. She wants a job there, and he has the power to give her the job or to reject her. Also, if he were to hire her, he'd have power over her during her entire employment.
No, but if it's a lucrative job that I really want to work at, then the hiring manager definitely has power over me.
>That assumes that transaction is somehow not mutually beneficial.
It is mutually beneficial, but you're probably looking at a 30:1 (or higher) benefit ratio here, in his favor.
> In the end, she's the one that has power over him, as evident from all publicity and his subsequent apology and management changes.
No, she only has power over him insomuch that she can leak any attempts by him to exploit his leverage over her. If he doesn't make any such attempts, she has no power.
This is like a cop beating and arresting someone recording him and, after the tape leaks to the media, defending the cop with "the suspect was the one with power over him because he was filming him, as evident from the aftermath."
>This is not how market works. The transaction you describe is not beneficial, and if that's what you see here, you don't account for all variables (one that people often miss is time, another is investment).
You were suggesting that he's benefitted by her employment and she's benefitted by being employed. I'm saying that balance is very much in his favor. She is much more at his mercy than he's at hers.
>You redefine what having power over someone means.
Then how do you define it? If you come to some sort of "gatekeeper" in a professional setting, like a hiring manager or investor, and they, right off the bat, they say they want to have sex with you, then how is this at all appropriate given they hold the power to fulfill the person's goals? A relationship like that is the definition of holding power over someone.
The direct respondent can't downvote you. You were downvoted and flagged by multiple other users.
>> No, but if it's a lucrative job that I really want to work at, then the hiring manager definitely has power over me.
> You redefine what having power over someone means.
If anything, you're the one operating with a non-standard definition of 'power'.
Sorry that's wrong. What you're saying is she's overpaid by a factor of 30. Kind of insulting to her no?
Because he's in a work/professional setting.
> What's so inappropriate in being confident enough to tell another person that you're attracted to them?
Nothing, if at a party, bar, or social event where people meet. In an interview at your company? Give me a break.
Business narcissism is a matter of making much of one's own achievements.
Sexual narcissism is a matter of making much of one's prowess/attractiveness (and being tone-deaf to what, to everyone else, would be obvious signs of disinterest on the part of the other party).
Narcissism in disgrace is a matter of making much of one's own mistakes, and one's own suffering. I realize the following is reaching a little bit, like your high school English teacher, but: Notice who appears (twice) in the title.
It reads like an apology on the surface, but it feels more like bragging and attention seeking.
So I'm glad he painted a picture.
What's wrong is retaliation based on those things happening.
Ignoring half of the equation to paint women as a unique victim class is disingenuous, and ironically, it is a power move. Topping from the bottom.
HR taking the company's side... A superior leveraging their position to extract concessions rather than engage a person on equal ground... These are universal problems. Twisting everything into a gender issue because of sexuality involves the automatic assumption that a woman's sexual virtue is something special and any other abuse of power is just not as big a deal. A very gender essentialist and conservative position.
As an actual leftie, it should make me sad, but tbh it amuses me to no end in its absurdity. In the name of progressive politics, all sorts of traditional views are being promoted. Men should be chivalrous, women need protection, public shaming is good, morality must be enforced by a clerical class, with everyone else kissing the ring in acquiescence. Bizarre.
As if politics are far more built-in than we want to admit, and freedom and tolerance can become labels for the exact opposite.
Do exploitative power imbalances fade into political and economic background noise when they're "only" about money and/or hierarchy, and no dating or sex are involved?
Do "uncomfortable feelings" around dating and sex have a paradoxically privileged place in this discourse, over "uncomfortable feelings" caused by more overt forms of verbal, financial, political, or legal abuse - and if so, why?
If you are in a position of power over another person, I would say there isn't an appropriate time. The number of hours you work isn't really relevant.
Put it this way: when is an appropriate time for a college professor (that works long hours!) to ask a student out on a date?
A student generally or one of his students? There is a difference. And not too long ago a professor dating a student that he/she didn't have power over was not that uncommon.
There are a lot of things that are not uncommon, but are still totally inappropriate.
> There are a lot of things that are not uncommon, but are still totally inappropriate.
Sorry! I was responding late at night, and, even though I quoted it, I totally missed tanderson92 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14680337) 's caveat "that he/she didn't have power over", which, of course, totally changes the ethics.
(It still doesn't seem persuasive to me to argue the ethics of a behaviour in terms of what used to be common, since it is still true that a lot of awful things used to be, and still are, common; but my comment was mostly based on a misinterpretation.)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone on a date. If they say no? Cool. Yes? Awesome. The act itself is not criminal, actions taken based on that (like retaliation) are.
Demonizing basic human behavior has no place in western society.
Is neither illogical nor slippery moral construct. If you disagree with the rule, you should find better argument then just calling it "not hard logic enough".
On related note, if hiring manager asks for dates regularly, any hired women will be assumed less competent and assumed to sleep her way to success - no matter what her response. It is not like these accusations were far away for good looking women, they are pretty much guaranteed in this setup.
That is not cool.
It is horrifying that world leaders and public figures use this kind of excuse, which is supposed to somehow give a pass, and then we see it trickle down to the man on the street.
Really, the public figures should be prosecuted and made an example of, so that is the example for the average man. Anything less is unacceptable.
One does not go up to someone you owe deference and include the word "fuck" specially given the kinds of allegations and confirmation, in your apology. Understand social convention and understand respect. It's like he's apologizing to one of his "bros".
Our legal system is not forgiving of people that make mistakes.
"I accidentally fell asleep at the wheel and killed someone" = manslaughter = prison.
What this person did is very wrong, and everyone who does it should be punished, regardless of their obscurity/fame.
"He didn't apologize good enough!"
Totally not a value judgement.
I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate. I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong.
There isn't any equivocating there. Dave acknowledged what he did was wrong, and took responsibility. I'm not saying he's some sort of great guy for apologizing, and he deserves to face the consequences of his actions. I am arguing that if people sincerely acknowledge their mistakes, and take steps to make amends, demands of "you're apologizing too much/not enough/wrong" are just vengeance and are not actually going to fix the problem in the long run.
If you ever find yourself in this person's shoes (innocent or guilty) you have nothing to gain by this sort of public display of remorse/sepukku as others have called it.
This type of angry, vitriolic, hate-filled-person will condemn you no matter if your apologies are sincere or not. The only logical move is to deny, people like the poster above will never believe you anyways but they're unwinable anyways.
As long as leftism rules the cultural zeitgeist apologizing for bad behavior will never be enough to matter.
Why do you think he is apologizing? Do you really think he is sorry or just sorry he got caught? I'm sure he is sincere, sincere that he feels bad that he got caught and is now suffering the consequences. This is just like the murderer who cries crocodile tears during sentencing.
Occam's razor. A devil does not become a saint overnight.
I do agree that an apology under these circumstances is not ideal, but what should he do, exactly? Dig a hole and jump in? Not respond at all? Just say it is true and leave it at that? Any response is going to be subject to dissatisfaction from some part of the mob that we are all part of.
I think the key is to realize that at some point in your life, you were the devil, whether your transgressions were subject to public scrutiny or not. Have some sympathy for the devil and do not be the one who casts a stone.
Sarah posted on twitter that other women have reached out to her claiming similar behavior.
https://twitter.com/sarahkunst/status/881004317674577920
> I think the key is to realize that at some point in your life, you were the devil, whether your transgressions were subject to public scrutiny or not. Have some sympathy for the devil and do not be the one who casts a stone.
In regards to his apology, I thought the qualifiers were offensive and it made me think he was being insincere. I see your point about the pitchforks and mob mentality and I see how my original comment can contribute to that.
That said, I also fee that as a society we have to emphatically reject this type of behavior, especially perpetuated by people with power/influence/resources against those without. We jail people in this country for far less.
Setting aside the fact there's nothing to prosecute in most of the cases, I'm curious why you think making examples of people is more important than punishing them in proportion to their offenses.
He's taking personal responsibility for his actions, openly and publicly. That takes a level of maturity and openness that I know is hard, and I fully respect.
All that he missed, in my opinion, is what his next steps are, and how going forward he can assure that this won't happen again. It sounds like he does have plans, but a good apology goes "I was wrong; here's why/how I was wrong; here's what I'm going to do in the future so that I don't repeat the mistake".
Read through the smarmy "he doesn't mean it" comments all over this thread to see what I mean.
This culture is toxic in the tech community and needs to stop.
ok
I'm sure, as a perfect individual you've never done anything unethical or immoral. As such, your "never forgive" attitude is perfectly justifiable.
Where can I find a list of "objectively wrong" things, and is there some kind of formal process to challenge them?
1. Sexual advances towards people you hold power over.
So far so good.
It is part of the solution.
It's also a very loud social signal.
Conversely, (again based on my less than complete knowledge of situation) it seems equally rediculous to say that she made unwanted advances to 500 Startups. They were in a social setting and it isn't clear they were hiring for something she qualified for. Should she apologize for leveraging her relationship with his acquintance to use a social situation professionally? Of course not! Dave did a borderline unethical thing in that scenario and based on the NYT article which is scant with details, I'd at most email her an apology for misreading the situation and being unprofessional
About the public seppuku question, maybe for a while but nah, for some reason everybody loves when other people discloses a hidden dark side and face public ashaming. Is something about being a social species, probably. We love gossip.
Instead we've created a culture where the only logical move is to deny deny deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence because the only thing the modern left hates more than "creep" is a loser.
The cynics in this thread (myself included) are not the target of this self-flagellation.
Moving past the judgements regarding the sincerity of his apology, it'd be interesting to learn the various constiuences' ideas of acceptable outcomes at this point.
However, I certainly agree with you that he should apologize to the actual people he wronged, more than to the world at large.
He may mean what he says but only time will tell. Currently is all talk.
I suppose he felt this 'public seppuku' was necessary because a) he was called out by name in the NY Times article and b) he wanted to put it on record that the woman he hit on wasn't rejected from his company for rejecting him. I suspect (b) is the true motive, and without a certain level of self-flagellation it wouldn't be socially acceptable to state that fact.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism#Communism
I was out drinking with friends from my University course, back in the day, and made some statement like "uh, well don't be fags about it" - a hangover from my days at a boys only secondary school where "gay" was the most common term for bad and "fag" was the most common insult.
Now, I have no issues with people's sexuality and would never want to offend anyone - but I was drunk and years of using the term as a generic negative insult just lead to me using the term habitually. The issue was, it wasn't just my close friends, but a larger group of people I knew less well.
One of them made the point that he was Bi and didn't appreciate the comment, and I wanted to curl up and die - instantly I had to try and explain myself and apologise. How I acted didn't represent my views, it isn't who I want to be, and it's not how I'd want to interact with anyone. I put that guy - and anyone else there - in a shitty situation and while he was fortunately understanding, and spoke up about it, someone could have just heard me and felt a bit of rejection from the world.
Now, you can argue about the sincerity of this guy's apology, and how possible it is to repeatedly do something and do the things he did in the context he did, etc..., but there comes a point at which if the message is good - which this apology is - it's a flat statement that his behavior was wrong, flat out, which is the right place to start from at least, I think you have to give some level of benefit of the doubt.
People do fuck up. Consequences for that are fine, but you have to try to give people routes to hold up their hands and reject things they did, that has value.
To note, obviously my usage of the terms during my schooling years was just as wrong, but I was a child and it's harder to judge myself at that age because of the environment and lack of knowledge I had at the time. Something I still regret deeply though - it must have been incredibly hard to be gay with so much constant negativity surrounding it in that environment.
I'm sorry, but this does not make sense to me. Of course what you said and how you acted represented your views at the time. It wasn't who you wanted to be, but it was who you were. You absolutely used the term fag as an insult and you meant it.
I'm posting this not to judge you or be self-righteous about it, but in the hope of gaining some understanding. I have seen it happen far too many times: a person's racist/sexist words go viral on social media or in the press, and they reflexively publish "That is not my view or a reflection of who I am. Everyone who is close to me knows this". This disassociation puzzles me greatly. How is it that you have the conviction to do/say something and then disavow it when challenged?
I fully agree, however, I think that's just your views slipping out. You might not want to be that way, but you are that way, possibly because of how you were raised or some other factor you didn't have control over. Saying "that is not a true reflection of who I really am" seems ingenious to me.
Likewise, at the time, I could have replaced "fag" with "dick" with no qualms at the time. It was an insult, and it's meaning didn't matter to me. (Until I was reminded of it's meaning and harm I was causing, which made me stop using it).
I guess I'd describe it as - I'd become desensitized to the meaning of the term and used it not expecting it to cause any harm. You can say that surely it's obvious that it causes harm, but it wasn't obvious to me until the described moment that I was propagating this negative idea of homosexuality. When I did notice that, I stopped.
It's a fine line that mostly relies on knowing my own intent - and I make no reservations in stating that whatever my intent, I know I caused harm at the time and I actively worked to ensure that I don't use "gay" and "fag" in that way, because it does have those effects.
But, I really appreciate it. In many situations, as you can see from other threads here, there is doubt in a lot of people's minds whether there's really a story here, whether the person was wrongly accused, whether it's as bad as people make it out to be, etc.
In this case, he's making it clear that, yes, he really was the wrong party and really did wrong things. I think we should take his statement at face value, and be thankful we have an example of a clear-cut wrong, so anybody who is unsure just how bad the harassment situation really is can point to this as an example.
this post shows some thoughtfulness, but my reaction is "stay far away from this person and this company"
There are way more of these creeps than these stories will let out. It really depends how well connected you are to the media machine in SV. Binary Capital and 500 are both too small and irrelevant to cause problems for the reporters breaking these stories, but what about Peter Thiel’s friends? You can’t even talk about them without worrying about going bankrupt.
There are a lot of women out there who are watching these stories and saying absolutely nothing, because they know the odds are still stacked against them. Exposing a couple mid tier guys doesn’t mean anything.
No, I don't mean to excuse McClure's behavior entirely; however, the fact that many of these women did not immediately cease contact after innapropriate advances, and continues to take advantage of funds and mentorship, suggests that these women are at least partly culpable. This isn't victim blaming; when you have hundreds of applicants to choose from/compete with, it isn't a surprise that people use/accept sexual flirtation (and sometimes favors) to get ahead/judge applicants.
People have been selling sex for thousands of years. The only novelty here is the outrage.
They are not in tech. They are in venture capital, and it's more challenging to get a position at a VC firm than it is to get a job at a startup as an engineer.
The truth is likely much murkier. But because of the power imbalance, in our culture we are more critical of McClure.
Also I'm speaking in general terms. Sexual favors are nothing new, regardless of whether you feel they are ethical.
And again this comes up every single time. Just because someone is lonely didn't mean they're entitled to sexually harass someone else. Nor does being horny justify it. Nor does being angry justify violence.
Similarly the fact they have to now choose between throwing away financial opportunity or acquiesce to this harassment is exactly why there is a law there protecting people from it. In part, it's illegal to put people in a position where they have to make that choice.
And what of the situation in which women continue to associate with their harassers? Do they truely have no liability? Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead? Why does this have to be such an absurdly one sided topic?
And yes, being lonely to the point of depression is indeed justification for making initial advances which may be misconstrued as sexual harassment, when monetary or other favors are accepted. If they do not cease when identified as unwelcome, they become a problem, sure. But the onus is also on the victim to communicate, and continued association is not only a mixed message, the victim begins to take advantage of the sexual tension by leading the harasser on and continuing to accept business favors.
In our rush to protect these women, whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless, we only consider the imbalance of power and totally ignore the imbalance of sexual capital that is rife for exploitation especially by females.
I also do not believe that down votes are designed to signal disagreement.
Liability in being the victim of harassment?
> Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of some women using sex to get ahead?
It's not impossible to consider this, but this isn't what is being discussed.
> and continued association is not only a mixed message,
And again you keep missing the point. Continued associated is a result of a business relationship. That's exactly the point. By continuing a professional relationship with someone does not mean you are consenting to further sexual advances that you've already declined.
> whom we paint (unfairly and innacurately) as defensless
Again noone is painting anyone as defenseless. You're view of this entire picture is skewed. It is about being placed in situations that people shouldn't have to be placed it. Or make decisions they shouldn't have to make. That doesn't make anyone defenseless. Victims of sexual harassment (whether men or women) have agency in life, it's just situations that they shouldn't be put in.
It's not inherently wrong, or something inherently taboo. (We've all been told not to stick our pens in the company ink, but... time and time again we also see examples of happily married couples who met on the job... Bill Gates' wife worked for Microsoft, The Obamas met while they were working together, Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively met on the set of Green Lantern...)
So it feels like the message here is, "It's fine when it works, and it's totally not fine when it doesn't work." The only way to know if it's fine is to ask. It's not really something you can make universal rules for. To each their own, right? (I would say a wedding ring means someone is off limits, but affairs happen all the time too.)
Point being, it has to be something more than, "It's OK to hit on someone if they are attracted to you." I think hitting on someone is inherently a compliment. But if they say no, and you try again, and they still say no, well probably don't try a third time. This guy is apologizing for being called a creep after hitting on someone once... man, that's rough. You don't know until you try.
There needs to be a little more flex here, it can't just come down to, "Anyone who we don't feel attraction to should be fired if they pay us a poorly worded compliment or tell a bad joke." Stalkers, sure... people who try and leverage their position in the company to get laid (with the implication), yeah... but just some guy who tries to clumsily flirt with a girl and can't play it smooth because he's fundamentally not a player and actually likes her... come on, cut that guy some slack.
If I'm a rich man and I ask a poor woman out, her answer actually might have a much bigger impact on her economic well-being than if I were an employer interviewing her for a job.
Does that make it wrong for rich men to ask poor women out?
I don't know the specifics of their situation, but I'd hope that he recused himself from being directly involved in her performance reviews etc., whereas McClure was explicitly tying his attraction to the hiring decision - "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you."
If he was overt, or repetitive, or really sleazy... yeah sure, I'm not on his side. But to me this just comes off as a guy who hit on someone who was out of his physical league and she didn't appreciate it (probably also because she didn't get offered a job). I don't think Dave McClure deserves to be crucified over this.
The apology explicitly states "I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate."
He's just... well... he seems like a really lonely guy.
This whole thread is toxic.
Nothing but polarized opinions. I'd like it if there was more middle ground, and a lot less emotionally-charged up/down votes. When the points start feeling like Reddit, it's a huge turnoff.
McClure was basically honking his horn while driving his Tesla down the street, hollering "nice tits!" At best, that is anti-social, rude and offputting. But to do it while someone is in the midst of applying for a job can't be seen as anything other than an abuse of power to get what you want.
How would you feel if McClure gay propositioned YOU while trying to apply for a job? You want to work at this VC fund but before you can get your foot in the door he says you are a super hot stud and and he wants to take you home. For a man, it would be awkward as hell but easy to deflect. And you would probably rather not work there (this is where it is bad for business, not just McClure's penis).
As am attractive woman, this shit happens ALL THE TIME. Please stop defending it as "normal animal behavior" or whatever. Using power to get laid is fine if someone is attracted to that. But using power OVER someone is coersion. Anyone over the age of 13 should be able to figure this out.
When I was in my 20s I had an older female boss hit on me all the time. It made me not want to work with her. And as soon as I could move projects I did. I didn't worry about it past that. It never occurred to me that I should be upset or hurt but her behavior. I just thought she was pathetic. I've had a gay boss, and would joke with him about how many blowjobs I would need to give to get out of a deadline... point being, maybe it wasn't "appropriate" but we had good rapport. You can laugh about stupid stuff. It's when people get all worked up and start wanting to tell others how to live that I think the real problem kicks in.
> As am attractive woman, this shit happens ALL THE TIME. Please stop defending it as "normal animal behavior" or whatever. Using power to get laid is fine if someone is attracted to that. But using power OVER someone is coersion. Anyone over the age of 13 should be able to figure this out.
I haven't read much about this story past what I saw on HN, but it just made McClure out to be a guy who was super awkward around women. Not in an aggressive predatory way, more just a sad geeky sort of "I haven't gotten laid in a long long time..." sort of way. There's always a power dynamic... some people can offer a job, or more social connections, or physical attraction, or money... it's not just that the guy had power over the girl -- clearly if he's feeling compelled to hit on the girl she had power over him too.
And I don't think she has any "hot girl" power over him. It sounds like he did this all the time, to any woman he wanted to bang. He wasn't pining over her, he didn't want to get to know her. To me it sounds like a short jump from this to grabbing them by the pussy because what are they going to do about it?
This has all the points of a proper apology: an understanding of the wrong committed, acknowledging that it was his fault, and demonstrating commitment to change. It also appears to be sincere
It's worth noting that Sarah claims that many other women contacted her with similar stories of harassment, the fact that all of them are also women of color is especially telling (as were all of Caldbeck's victims).
I mean if he wants to bring up contextual details, maybe McClure should mention that like Caldbeck, he is also married. So how more scummy can you be? A sexist harasser and an adulterer. These guys are only sorry they got caught and are now back pedaling to save some face.
People need to understand that this type of behavior causes terrible damage on the victims which can last for years and often leave permanent scars. So it's especially fucked up and unjust that people like McClure and Caldbeck, when caught, can simply make a half-assed -- and in the case of Caldbeck and Sacca, narcissistic -- apology; lay low for a few months; and then jump right back as if nothing happened.
For fuck's sake one of the LPs at Binary knew about Caldbeck's reputation and harassment issues and still invested.
Not too many city dwelling men use their narrow focal vision and instinctive ability to calculate parabolic maths and wind speed to throw spears at dinner.
That means they should also curb their instinctive impulses to club the nearest female and drag them back to the cave by her hair...