
McClure steps back at 500Startups after internal sexual misconduct investigation - janober
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/30/mcclure-steps-back-at-500-startups-after-internal-sexual-misconduct-investigation
======
rmason
The one person that I would have never suspected is Dave McClure. Here's a guy
who didn't fit the investment world and he was smart and hustled his way in.

He started 500 startups with a female co-founder and said he chose her because
she was smarter. He saw an opening for himself and talked about playing
Moneyball for venture capital. He spoke often in interviews about chasing
investments among founders who didn't fit the profile but were eminently
backable and that included women. He blogged publicly about his insecurities
and campaigned for diversity.

[https://500hats.com/commitment-to-
diversity-d8a4ac8b1c12](https://500hats.com/commitment-to-
diversity-d8a4ac8b1c12)

Guess it proves you can't really know a person through their writings and
interviews. He was someone that I admired and I'm more than a little
disappointed.

~~~
anindha
I have seen questionable material come from him [1]:

Examples: "Money Shot" with kitten spreadings its legs and "Great
Products...Get you LAID".

[1] [https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/how-to-pitch-a-vc-
or-a...](https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/how-to-pitch-a-vc-or-
angel-13504703/)

edit: link directly to slides and deleted nested comment.

~~~
borski
To be fair, the second slide directly says it is guaranteed to offend.

~~~
cylinder
"heh, this is guaranteed to offend, but if you go out to dinner with me you'll
definitely get this job!"

~~~
borski
Conflating two things here. Saying something exaggerated and offensive,
specifically for effect and attention, is not the same thing as a power play
for sex.

------
gcatalfamo
Without defending anyone, My honest takeout by the whole sexual harassment
threshold in the bay area or the US in general is that you could never end up
together or even married with a colleague in that paranoid atmosphere.

Which is exactly what I did where I live in Italy. Happily married and yes,
after saying things to a colleague of mine that would have made me accused in
the bay area.

~~~
kelnos
There's a difference between being involved with a peer or with someone
outside your reporting structure on the org chart, and being involved with
someone who is inside your reporting structure. It's the differential in power
when combined with sexual advances that creates problems, not the sexual
advances alone.

Of course, unwanted sexual advances are a problem regardless of the
relationship of the two parties, but unwanted _or_ wanted advances between two
people with a superior/subordinate relationship is where we get into trouble.

At all companies I've worked for in the US, there's never been a ban or stigma
against colleagues dating, as long as there's no power differential between
the two people. We still of course always expect people to behave
professionally within a professional setting, but after-hours is your
business.

If relationships between people with a power differential are commonplace in
Italy, that's... unfortunate.

~~~
hbt
Relationships with a power differential are common in the US too.

Women generally date up. This is especially common within professions with a
high status since it is difficult to meet someone equal/better. View
[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-
whom/](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/)

People generally are poor at reading others and end up pushing too far or
getting offended easily ( _not_ referring to this case)

What's more likely to happen is what has been highlighted in the "sex
partition" \- [https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Office-Partition-Dividing-
Workpla...](https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Office-Partition-Dividing-
Workplace/dp/1493007947)

Men are more likely to create more barriers to protect themselves and prevent
bad optics rather than walk on egg shells around women. This in turn limits
opportunities for women (aka glass ceiling).

~~~
skywhopper
If men feel the need to "walk on eggshells" to avoid offending women, then
they're already in a bad place. Most men don't actually feel this way. If your
first instinct in dealing with a woman at work is to make a sexual joke, or
comment on your colleague's attractiveness, or to scheme about how you could
convince her to date you, then _you_ are the problem, and you have problems,
and you should do something about it. That is not normal or excusable
behavior.

As for "women generally date up", that is a near tautology given the imbalance
in power generally between men and women. By the mere fact that men
overwhelmingly hold positions of power, women will typically "date up". There
is no way around that. So it's not a useful statistic and certainly isn't
evidence of anything.

------
ithinkinstereo
Oh and he referenced his penis size at a startup event:
[https://twitter.com/founderofstick/status/880977488494469122](https://twitter.com/founderofstick/status/880977488494469122)

Sarah Kunst, the woman quoted in the NYT, mentions that other women have
reached out to her about McClure. Like Caldwell, also all women of color:
[https://twitter.com/sarahkunst/status/881004317674577920](https://twitter.com/sarahkunst/status/881004317674577920)

~~~
superplussed
I saw him speak at a fireside chat here in Berlin, and was struck by his
overall juvenile attitude and idiocy. Given that that was his "shtick" I guess
he was just hiding in plain sight. But I'm surprised that his poor judgement
is such a shock to people when it's evident from his performances __in public
__.

~~~
kelnos
Yeah, that's the thing I don't get. I'm certainly no stranger to foul language
(2 minutes with me in a social setting and that's obvious), but his shtick
always seemed to me to be about shock value and getting a reaction, and a
certain amount of braggadocio around being an "outsider", which has always
turned me off.

~~~
yokisan
You'll just looove his inane tantrum about Trump then:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVTVf7ffShg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVTVf7ffShg)

If one wishes to virtue-signal it helps to at least be virtuous.

------
thinbeige
Slightly OT: Everyone wants to become a CEO or VC. But the truth is you don't
want to. You'll miss the times when you were a naive intern who could mess
around with just everyone you met both on a private and professional level.
Once you juggle millions it's over. The slightest advance is treated--with
good reason--as sexual harassment.

~~~
pm90
That's only true strictly in the context of dating within the professional
pool. I would argue that having more money and power is good in general, but
NOT for dating subordinates and coworkers.

~~~
thinbeige
Yes, you are right, but it's not that easy. Also the private environment has
its pitfalls.

Without noticing you become quickly a public face the more powerful you get.
Then, even in a private context you have to be careful who you approach, how
you approach and how many. Often private and professional environments are not
clearly separated as well.

Let's take again the intern example: There's nothing wrong with a cocky intern
approaching and kiss-closing dozens of women on a night out. There's nothing
wrong doing this every Friday and Saturday. But some CEOs or VCs would face
immediate trouble if such behaviour even in a private context would become
public.

Their life isn't better.

~~~
smacktoward
The only way the CEOs or VCs would get in professional trouble for that
behavior is if the women who they were slobbering on were women who _they have
power over in their business relationships._ Rich men can (and do) slobber on
as many women they want to who they have no professional relationship with,
and nobody has a problem with that. It's fine, as long as you don't bring that
behavior _into the workplace._

It's not rocket science. You can fool around with as many women as you want,
as long as those women aren't subordinate to you in their professional roles.
It's when you insist on mixing your business with your pleasure that you get
yourself into trouble.

I legitimately cannot understand why so many men have so much trouble
understanding this.

------
AndrewKemendo
Very disappointing. As a 500 alum I would never have expected this, as the
environment was very professional and there were a lot of powerful women in
leadership positions. In fact if memory serves, at least at mountain view, the
women were more numerous than the men.

Kudos to Christine for being transparent, as expected.

------
baristaGeek
How can a newly born organization build an organizational culture that avoids
sexual misconduct as much as possible?

~~~
kevmo
Proactively: Be overt about your policies and values. Even though everyone
will shift uncomfortably and roll their eyes, have occasional training
sessions. Make a discussion of "what is not ok to say" part of your onboarding
process. Have 1 on 1s. Collect anonymized feedback.

Reactively: When offensive behavior occurs, it has to be nipped in the bud
ASAP. A quick chat with a junior employee (and maybe perhaps handing over a
pamphlet on sexual harassment) may be all it takes. Egregious and/or repeat
offenders should be fired.

------
jacquesm
Someone should proofread that bio at TC, it says they have 'more than $200 in
assets under management'.

~~~
beager
That's how I characterize my beanie baby collection!

------
sagivo
> "The change I want to see is a startup environment where everyone,
> regardless of gender and background feels welcome and safe."

So basically her message is "it's ok to be inappropriate and stay as partner
in our firm. Our investors' money is more important than sexual misbehaving".
Sounds like she doesn't really deliver on her change.

------
stevenj
The sexual harassment allegations that have pervaded the tech industry this
year is really awful to see.

I hope each and every person is exposed and held accountable for their
actions.

It's inspiring to see all the women who are standing up and speaking out about
these issues.

------
diogenescynic
Glad to see that guy taking a fall. He's been a complete asshole when I've
seen him interact with people. Couldn't have happened to a better person.

------
orliesaurus
Dave McClure? No way! Who is next?

------
plinkplonk
something I've never understood. These guys (Kalanick, McClure) are multi
millionaires, and could probably get any number of women to take interest in
them on that basis alone. Why risk career suicide?

Why would they _need_ to hit on women at their _workplaces_? Why isn't the
normal dating game (where they have a massive edge via being loaded)
sufficient? I don't get it (at all).

What am I missing? These guys seem to be (borderline) insane and incapable of
rational thought.

At the workplace do the _work_! Leave the political/religious/mating etc games
outside.

~~~
crispytx
I don't think that's fair to lump Travis Kalanick into the same boat as Dave
McClure. Kalanick didn't sexually harass anyone personally, his subordinates
did. There isn't really any evidence that Travis Kalanick tried to cover
anything up either. If you read that Susan Fowler blog post regarding sexual
harassment at Uber, it sounds like she was sexually harassed by one person,
and the HR department wouldn't do anything about it. To me that sounds like
the harasser and the HR department are the guilty parties, not Travis
Kalanick.

~~~
plinkplonk
I concede the point (and it is a good one, Thank You).

I don't follow this stuff in any great detail and those are just the first
names I thought of. Erroneously, as it turned out, and as you correctly point
out.

Fwiw, I am not really interested in "social justice" issues and I use this
forum mainly to get insight into purely technical issues, and I really should
keep out of such politically/ideologically charged threads. Note to self.

Thanks again.

(me exits thread and topic)

------
chenster
Full report from NYTimes [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-
entrepre...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-
entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html)

------
Pfhreak
Apologies, I misattributed a quote.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14674708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14674708)
and marked it off-topic.

------
crispytx
"This guy f*cks!" \- Russ Hanneman

~~~
NDT
Actually he doesn't.

------
gduncan12
When these reports about sexual harassment are so vague about what actually
happened it does a disservice to everyone. How is anyone supposed to know
where the line is between hitting on someone and sexual harassment? Many women
like to play hard to get. Many men out there are just plain dumb when it comes
to how they show their interest in a woman, not malicious. With more specifics
they'd be able to learn what's right and what's not.

~~~
nl
I assume you actually realise why they are vague, but in case you don't: it's
polite. Many victims find it humiliating to talk about, and adding details
often adds to this humiliation.

In this case many details were published elsewhere already, in enough detail
to offer little excuse.

~~~
gduncan12
Was the victim(s) identified? If not, then we should be free to talk about the
specifics without making any identifications. Again, there's no details to go
on here.

~~~
nl
_Was the victim(s) identified?_

Yes, in the other coverage.

