7 ms·

> I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not naming names or specific details to protect anonymity) who have experienced repeated unwelcome advan

by braveo 9y ago

> I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not naming names or specific details to protect anonymity) who have experienced repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other. That's not as egregious as groping (one of the accusations in this article), but that's still sexual harassment by the letter of the law and slimy as hell every other way. While I don't know the details of what happened here, there's nothing wrong or illegal about approaching someone and I'm more than a little miffed that anyone would consider it necessary (or good) to make "unwelcome advances" illegal. Yes, even unwelcome advances to married women.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fishtoaster 9y ago
I think the key word is "repeated." Approaching someone is allowed. Repeatedly approaching them after they tell you know is not.
- braveo 9y ago
  that's still not sexual harassment, there are plenty of stories of men chasing women and eventually marrying them. human sexuality isn't that cut and dried.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    Not taking no for an answer is sexual harassment, if it makes the person on the receiving end uncomfortable.
    - mangofoobar 9y ago
      The article does not mention any of the women were direct with him and said "No". Infact, I would bet that they did not say "no". Because if they did... they would have used that to support their case. Smart that these women didn't actually level legal charges on him. Therefore they can tarnish is reputation and not experience an investigation to see who is telling the truth and therefore risk their careers. They even pointed out that it's so common place that they didn't think it was worthy of a police investigation. Why don't they "come out" about the hundred men that cat-called them this week alone? Oh right, because they wouldn't get fame or have the joy of taking down a powerful man.
    - qubex 9y ago
      I'm very happy my fiancée didn't take ’no’ to be my definitive answer. You really can't reduce these things to binary operations.
      - graphememes 9y ago
        Unfortunately the majority of these individuals haven't actualized that things in life aren't completely binary and attempt to apply a binary algorithm to solve non-binary problems.
        qubex 9y ago
        According to the accounts I have read (that have not been upheld in a court of law "beyond all reasonable doubt" or whatever the standard for these things is), this man was definitely in the wrong and had to be stopped. I applaud those women who selflessly put their names out there to stop him. However, it seems to me, as a non-American, that the US is pretty hysterical on this topic. Humans make each other uncomfortable sometimes, some situations are inherently awkward, emotional anguish is inflicted on good people (I've had to fire a few... that's horrible on both sides of the desk)... there's no reason society should be ascribed the duty to guarantee that nobody ever finds themselves in situations they are not comfortable in. As I mentioned, my partner pushed my boundaries a bit, but I'm doubleplusgood happy she did. In hindsight, my initial reticence was an error, and by persisting she allowed me the opportunity to correct that. Now our lives are significantly enhanced as a result. I don't see why such behaviour should be subject to censure. Did it make me uneasy? In a transitory way, yes. But it's part and parcel of existing in a social fabric.
        derderder 9y ago
        I actually know one of the women in the article quiet well, and used to be friends. She groped my boyfriend which I witnessed but she didn't see me standing there. The man complained to me immediately after the event, she later said he groped her and warned me about him. I was standing there and this is man I was with for years and parted way amicably. Since there are a lot of complaints, I assume this guy in the article is a sleazeball, but honestly, I know how one of the women operated even going back a decade
    - wruza 9y ago
      Women who don't say "no" for the first time are widely considered low-moral, not to mention that the first approach may be unexpected for her, so timeout is needed. And men who can truly see whether she's really uncomfortable or just playing well-known game can be counted on fingers. It seems that this rule, as you state it, leaves no legal room for regular, not very confident or skilled people to "interact".
      - eropple 9y ago
        > Women who don't say "no" for the first time are widely considered low-moral There is no "low morality" in a woman accepting an invitation to go on a date even in the most hidebound parts of the United States. But that's not what you mean. You don't mean "interact". You mean "screw". That you're conflating the idea of "regular, not very confident or skilled people" interacting with women with its very small subset, screwing, is telling as to your worldview and how you regard the women under discussion. You should stop digging.
        wruza 9y ago
        Of course it's no low morality in accepting a date. But I thought we discuss this in context of loose sexual behavior (implied by the article events), not of going on dates or making relationships. As of interact vs screw, it is the matter of accent, not of an objective view. Please don't take my words out of context, nor make a personal diagnosis. Proving [not your] point by attacking the person under his uncertain inferences is not a great way to deliver an argument anyway. How do you have brief experiences, btw?
  - kybernetikos 9y ago
    I think you're talking about something different to the main thread here. Most people here are talking about a professional context where there is a significant power imbalance between the parties. Context is important.
    - braveo 9y ago
      I was specifically responding to the claim that 'unwanted advances' could be considered sexual harassment under the law. yes, technically you could consider rape to be an 'unwanted advance', but no reasonable person would ever characterize it as so. The very fact that it's characterized as an unwanted advance tells you it's not sexual harassment, it's just someone chasing another person.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        > The very fact that it's characterized as an unwanted advance http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/workplace-sexual-harassment/ http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rig... > Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Very generally, “sexual harassment” describes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Federal law appears to disagree with you.
        braveo 9y ago
        no it doesn't.
sulam 9y ago
VCs have a position of power when dealing with entrepreneurs. It is never okay to flirt or proposition someone whom you have temporary or prolonged power over. This is well accepted in modern society. Bosses, professors, doctors, interviewers and every other situation I can think of have a bright line where it's not okay to try and romantically or sexually engage someone when you're in a context that you have power over them, even if it is ephemeral. VCs are no different. I'm not even going to try and address groping or other forms of harassment, which are wrong even when a power dynamic doesn't exist.

by braveo 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fishtoaster 9y ago

I think the key word is "repeated." Approaching someone is allowed. Repeatedly approaching them after they tell you know is not.

braveo 9y ago
that's still not sexual harassment, there are plenty of stories of men chasing women and eventually marrying them. human sexuality isn't that cut and dried.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  Not taking no for an answer is sexual harassment, if it makes the person on the receiving end uncomfortable.
  - mangofoobar 9y ago
    The article does not mention any of the women were direct with him and said "No". Infact, I would bet that they did not say "no". Because if they did... they would have used that to support their case. Smart that these women didn't actually level legal charges on him. Therefore they can tarnish is reputation and not experience an investigation to see who is telling the truth and therefore risk their careers. They even pointed out that it's so common place that they didn't think it was worthy of a police investigation. Why don't they "come out" about the hundred men that cat-called them this week alone? Oh right, because they wouldn't get fame or have the joy of taking down a powerful man.
  - qubex 9y ago
    I'm very happy my fiancée didn't take ’no’ to be my definitive answer. You really can't reduce these things to binary operations.
    - graphememes 9y ago
      Unfortunately the majority of these individuals haven't actualized that things in life aren't completely binary and attempt to apply a binary algorithm to solve non-binary problems.
      - qubex 9y ago
        According to the accounts I have read (that have not been upheld in a court of law "beyond all reasonable doubt" or whatever the standard for these things is), this man was definitely in the wrong and had to be stopped. I applaud those women who selflessly put their names out there to stop him. However, it seems to me, as a non-American, that the US is pretty hysterical on this topic. Humans make each other uncomfortable sometimes, some situations are inherently awkward, emotional anguish is inflicted on good people (I've had to fire a few... that's horrible on both sides of the desk)... there's no reason society should be ascribed the duty to guarantee that nobody ever finds themselves in situations they are not comfortable in. As I mentioned, my partner pushed my boundaries a bit, but I'm doubleplusgood happy she did. In hindsight, my initial reticence was an error, and by persisting she allowed me the opportunity to correct that. Now our lives are significantly enhanced as a result. I don't see why such behaviour should be subject to censure. Did it make me uneasy? In a transitory way, yes. But it's part and parcel of existing in a social fabric.
        derderder 9y ago
        I actually know one of the women in the article quiet well, and used to be friends. She groped my boyfriend which I witnessed but she didn't see me standing there. The man complained to me immediately after the event, she later said he groped her and warned me about him. I was standing there and this is man I was with for years and parted way amicably. Since there are a lot of complaints, I assume this guy in the article is a sleazeball, but honestly, I know how one of the women operated even going back a decade
  - wruza 9y ago
    Women who don't say "no" for the first time are widely considered low-moral, not to mention that the first approach may be unexpected for her, so timeout is needed. And men who can truly see whether she's really uncomfortable or just playing well-known game can be counted on fingers. It seems that this rule, as you state it, leaves no legal room for regular, not very confident or skilled people to "interact".
    - eropple 9y ago
      > Women who don't say "no" for the first time are widely considered low-moral There is no "low morality" in a woman accepting an invitation to go on a date even in the most hidebound parts of the United States. But that's not what you mean. You don't mean "interact". You mean "screw". That you're conflating the idea of "regular, not very confident or skilled people" interacting with women with its very small subset, screwing, is telling as to your worldview and how you regard the women under discussion. You should stop digging.
      - wruza 9y ago
        Of course it's no low morality in accepting a date. But I thought we discuss this in context of loose sexual behavior (implied by the article events), not of going on dates or making relationships. As of interact vs screw, it is the matter of accent, not of an objective view. Please don't take my words out of context, nor make a personal diagnosis. Proving [not your] point by attacking the person under his uncertain inferences is not a great way to deliver an argument anyway. How do you have brief experiences, btw?
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  I think you're talking about something different to the main thread here. Most people here are talking about a professional context where there is a significant power imbalance between the parties. Context is important.
  - braveo 9y ago
    I was specifically responding to the claim that 'unwanted advances' could be considered sexual harassment under the law. yes, technically you could consider rape to be an 'unwanted advance', but no reasonable person would ever characterize it as so. The very fact that it's characterized as an unwanted advance tells you it's not sexual harassment, it's just someone chasing another person.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      > The very fact that it's characterized as an unwanted advance http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/workplace-sexual-harassment/ http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rig... > Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Very generally, “sexual harassment” describes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Federal law appears to disagree with you.
      - braveo 9y ago
        no it doesn't.

sulam 9y ago

VCs have a position of power when dealing with entrepreneurs. It is never okay to flirt or proposition someone whom you have temporary or prolonged power over. This is well accepted in modern society. Bosses, professors, doctors, interviewers and every other situation I can think of have a bright line where it's not okay to try and romantically or sexually engage someone when you're in a context that you have power over them, even if it is ephemeral. VCs are no different. I'm not even going to try and address groping or other forms of harassment, which are wrong even when a power dynamic doesn't exist.