
Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness” - Geekette
https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-black-box-of-inappropriateness/
======
akanet
Thanks for sharing this. Reading Dave's post the first time, all I could think
was "this seems like the most bland, cop-out, vague apology I've ever seen."
He didn't list the specifics of what he felt bad about, and the whole thing
read like a PR release to get ahead of any potential fallout.

Reading the "kudos" from men who thought he was a great guy for coming forward
only after years of harassment came to a head was unpleasant.

~~~
Gargoyle
Not in any way to defend Dave, but I think it would have been wrong for him to
publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims
involved.

But I strongly support them coming forward and telling their own stories. That
has value and gives the accusations their proper perspective and gravity. It
truly is different to be confronted with the details.

~~~
jacquesm
> but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that
> could cause further distress to the victims involved.

But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just
misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the
victims, see linked article.

~~~
jhanschoo
I was wondering how true this was. It's here:

>With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like
to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several
years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned
she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the
time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christine Tsai
to begin a formal interview process with 500, where Christine and others on
the team met with her. Ultimately, 500 decided not to offer Sarah a job. Again
my apologies to Sarah for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was
social, but in hindsight was clearly not. It was my fault and I take full
responsibility. She was correct in calling me out.

[https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-
sorry-d2c13e996ea0](https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0)

The NYT article ([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)) did not go into these
specifics.

Below is all it discusses about her:

>In 2014, Sarah Kunst, 31, an entrepreneur, said she discussed a potential job
at 500 Startups, a start-up incubator in San Francisco. During the recruiting
process, Mr. McClure, a founder of 500 Startups and an investor, sent her a
Facebook message that read in part, “I was getting confused figuring out
whether to hire you or hit on you.”

>Ms. Kunst, who now runs a fitness start-up, said she declined Mr. McClure’s
advance. When she later discussed the message with one of Mr. McClure’s
colleagues, she said 500 Startups ended its conversations with her.

~~~
tgjsrkghruksd
For anyone for whom it's not obvious. The point is not that he spiked her
chances to get hired for rejecting his advances, or that she wasn't treated
fairly by in the remainder of the interview process. The point is that he hit
on her when she was expressing interest in a job, an advance backed by not
only an (even if ultimately unfounded) fear that her application MIGHT be
spiked if she rejected his advances, but a strong impression that ACCEPTING
these advances would GET her the job. Sex and romance in the workplace is
always fraught, but this is why above almost all you never, never initiate
them with someone in your chain of command or when they are attempting to move
into it. Contrary to what others are saying it is still in and of itself
probably not a crime in most jurisdictions but it is a serious civil wrong
that can cost immense money and goodwill, besides being just wrong. And if
you're the CEO of the organization, well, you should be appropriately
compensated already.

------
morgante
This is a really great post, both in the courage it took to write and the
logical analysis it provides.

I have to provide a bit of mea culpa here. When this issue first surfaced, I
thought it was much more towards the line of flirting which went overboard (to
an unacceptable but understandable level). It's much worse than that. This is
undoubtably sexual harassment and those differences/nuances matter.

All I can say is that I'm sorry I didn't believe it was more serious when
first reported. I know it's difficult, but I wish more women had the courage
to come forward with full stories so we could more accurately judge the
context and actions involved (ex. with other VCs, like Chris Sacca).

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line
> of flirting which went overboard.

"Flirting which goes overboard" is perhaps understandable from a co-worker or
peer. It is absolutely, 100% an abuse of power when a VC does it to a
potential investee. Imagine it from the woman's point of view. Suppose you had
an idea you worked long and hard on, and then when you present it to a VC, he
starts flirting with you? What do you do? Are you worried that spurning his
advances will jeopardize your potential funding? Worse, it has to be
incredibly demoralizing to want to be treated in the basis of your
accomplishments but then know the VC is judging you through the primary lens
of sex.

~~~
morgante
I didn't say it was okay or acceptable, but I had a much easier time imagining
how a powerful VC ends up making a woman uncomfortable through flirting than
full-on sexual assault.

Like I said, that was my fault. This is a lot more serious than I first
realized when stories surfaced.

------
jmcgough
Elizabeth Yin (500 startups partner) just quit:

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-
claims-500-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-
claims-500-startups-leadership-delayed-acknowledging-mcclures-harassment-as-
new-allegations-surface/)

------
ChuckMcM
As the father of three daughters I always cringe a bit when I read things like
this. Thanks Cheryl for sharing your story, and men please remember it isn't
how _you_ feel about whether or not an action was appropriate or
inappropriate, it is how _they_ feel about it.

~~~
enriquto
As a father of a daughter and a son, I disagree strongly with what you say.
Feelings are completely irrelevant here.

Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when
being told "no", is not sexual assault; regardless of how either person felt
about that. You can consider it awkward, ridiculous, or just normal human
sexual behaviour. But it is not by any means assault.

~~~
rectang
> Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when
> being told "no", is not sexual assault;

That's not an accurate summary of her account. He'd been rebuffed repeatedly
and clearly _before_ forcing her into a corner and trying to kiss her. While
the exact legal definition of "sexual assault" varies depending on the
jurisdiction, if it came down to a court decision I don't like his chances.

~~~
enriquto
> ... forcing her into a corner ...

I did nor interpret her text that way. To be fair, the whole text is very
confusing for an article that purports to be "shedding light". The sentence
that talks about the corner is this:

"On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed
into a corner, made contact to kiss me, and said (...)"

Now, this is extremely vague and can mean anything. He was already going out,
but she was in the way, and the exit door was on a corner? He pushed himself
without touching her (because the contact was later, during the kiss attempt)?
This can be construed as assault or as a normal goodbye when leaving the house
of somebody.

It is infuriating that this crucial part of the text (where the alleged
assault happens), is extremely vague. Moreover, the fact that the text is
riddled with bogus claims like "unwanted propositions", does not play in favor
of its credibility. That's actually the whole point of propositions, to see if
you are wanted or not! What does it matter if a proposition is wanted or not?
This is ridiculous.

In the end, this noise plays against the victims of assault. When somebody is
assaulted, she should go immediately to the police, not write a vague article
three years later, mixing real problems with imaginary ones in the same list.

~~~
grey-area
_Now, this is extremely vague and can mean anything. He was already going out,
but she was in the way, and the exit door was on a corner?...This can be
construed as assault or as a normal goodbye when leaving the house of
somebody._

A normal goodbye is not forced on someone who has repeatedly said no to
advances. The account was really quite clear, far clearer than McClure's
apology. And yet you feel the need to make up details (where the door was etc)
in order to try to excuse his behaviour, and call her a liar. Why is that? Why
do you think she would lie in this situation and he would not?

Your response says more about you than her. Also, your incredulous response is
the perfect illustration of why this woman didn't go the police and go public
with her story years ago - she was in a vulnerable position, and would be
slandered and called a liar if she made the claims public, and likely
disbelieved by most of the men she worked with and then calumnied in court by
well paid lawyers. The woman has zero incentive to lie, and frankly very
little incentive in our current society to come forward, it is highly likely
she is telling the truth in this situation simply because the balance of power
likes with McClure and if she lied her career would be over (it will be harder
even if she tells the truth).

The reaction on HN to these stories has been damning (for the global tech
industry) - it's clear tech has a long way to go before even confronting these
issues truthfully and without prejudice, let alone actually dealing with them.

The first step to dealing with this problem properly is not to write long
screeds about how this woman might well be lying (the implication being this
is a common occurrence, not an outlier), but to accept her story at face value
- leave it to the police or those investigating the incident to verify it.

~~~
enriquto
I do not believe the author is lying. I honestly do not understand the
relevance problem that she is reporting. She cried after an awkward
interaction? This happened to me all the time when I was younger, no big deal
really.

~~~
jpetso
The "awkward interaction" here is being physically intimidated by someone who
doesn't respect being told No, who is big enough to overpower you and who is
in a position. Of power with clear conflict of interest.

It's great that you wouldn't be terrified in this kind of situation. It's also
important to know that not everyone feels the same way that you do, and that
it's entirely reasonable and expected for someone to be scared shitless given
the situation described. It's not their fault to feel that way, and they're
not the ones who should "grow a pair". Everyone here needs to make sure that
physical intimidation doesn't happen, and if you're not sure about whether
it's wanted, get a clear approval before you storm onto someone.

------
jacquesm
It's going to be pretty impossible to sow doubt about the 'setting' on this
one like he did with the previous instance. Makes you wonder how often this
sort of thing played out, 10's of times? 100's?

~~~
ithinkinstereo
At least 12 women according to the update in Cheryl's post. Most, if not all
of these women, are also people of color according to Sarah Kunst.

 _< <Update>> I just spoke to Sarah Kunst and learned from her that at least
12 other women including me, have faced sexual harassment or advances from
Dave of various degrees. Some of them are portfolio company CEOs like myself.
They’re afraid to come out, but some eventually will. I had doubts publishing
this, but after talking to Sarah, it is clear to me now that I can’t just sit
silently and trust that Dave’s behavior will stop, or that we can just file
his misconduct under “Dave being Dave.” This is about protecting other women
who might otherwise be subjected to his future unwanted sexual advances._

~~~
ForrestN
Why was this downvoted? Asking sincerely in an effort to understand and learn.

~~~
ithinkinstereo
Because there are tons of apologists in the valley. Men who also harass women
like McClure and feel they're entitled to it, especially against women of
color.

~~~
dang
The overwhelming majority of HN votes don't come from "the valley". And to the
extent we have data on this the geographical trend is probably opposite to
what you're suggesting.

~~~
jellicle
There's really been a considerable change in HN in the past few years. A
couple of years ago, a thread like this would have been 100% apologists and
victim-blaming, laced with a heavy dose of outright misogyny. It would have
been flagged off the the front page in minutes. Today, the threads are much
better with only a small amount of that.

I'm unclear whether this is because a) Silicon Valley is changing b) the user
composition of HN is changing or c) the misogynist types are just feeling less
confident. Regardless of the reason, it's a change for the better.

~~~
eropple
I have to credit 'dang and 'sctb's public moderation and tone-setting for a
lot of it (and I've been a critic of weak and permissive moderation here in
the past, so credit where credit is due). HN still has some really profound
problems with punching down, but so does everywhere else and it's improved
significantly; amongst the places I hang out it's gone from perhaps the most
egregious example of the kind of nastiness in the industry to somewhere better
than the median.

~~~
camelite
I will second that the moderators deserve credit for the change in "tone" as
you put it. But it is not really a change in tone, but rather that the hold-
on-a-seconders, whose "tone" is generally utterly anodyne in comparison to the
reflexive vituperation they receive (not that it bothers me) have been warned
off contributing. And so it goes.

~~~
glangdale
The contributions of those anodyne 'hold-on-a-seconders' should not be missed.
There was a reflexive script that they worked off that sounded all very mature
but pretty much came down to people wandering into every thread and reminding
everyone that sometimes victims lie.

They never had any specific reason to do this; it was never the case that
these guys had new information. They just felt consistently moved to remind us
all that No-one Really Can Know All The Facts every time an allegation turned
up, like they had just invented epistemology and wanted to tell the world.

~~~
eropple
Exactly this. It's whataboutism designed to discredit and damage the victims
and to that end I actively don't respect (and do downvote, and sometimes flag)
those posts.

------
dawhizkid
Question for me is when did Christine Tsai know and why was nothing done
sooner?

She tweeted (now deleted) about Caldbeck a week before asking “Where’s the
Outrage?” when it now sounds like she kept the real reason why McClure was put
in a “limited” role in April for reasons unknown to even the 500 staff (and
obviously the public until this past weekend)
[https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-
claims-500-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-
claims-500-startups-leadership-delayed-acknowledging-mcclures-harassment-as-
new-allegations-surface/)

Hard for me to defend the public moral outrage she showed for the Binary cap
situation when she clearly kept silent about similar issues with her own firm.

------
skc
I'm male and I find it so bizarre that men behave in this manner. But it
happens so often that I wonder sometimes if I'm the one who is not normal.

I love women. I am attracted to them constantly. But the thought of making
sexual advances towards them when I have not received any sign of interest
beyond friendship or business etc, repulses me.

How hard can it be to just be nice.

As men we really need to do better.

~~~
e40
I have felt this way my whole life. I'm just starting to think the same, that
I'm the abnormal one. I had assumed that we, as a society, were on the
downhill side of women's equality. Then Sessions became the AG and I watched
women testifying in front of Congress treated like it was 1950.

I think all that progress we made over the last 50 years was partly in my
head.

------
drefanzor
Beyond creepy. It seems he has a pattern of this behavior, and I'm wondering
how often he succeeds in his hunt. Thanks for getting your story out!

~~~
ithinkinstereo
Enough to keep on doing it year after year after year.

~~~
at-fates-hands
Which is the part that puzzles me. Successful guy, plenty of money. Get a high
priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I
mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every
city you could call when you feel lonely.

If he was after something deeper, hire a dating consultant and find something
worthwhile.

It just amazes me that people who have both the means and ability to get what
they want do foolish stuff like he's doing.

~~~
jaggederest
> Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what
> you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in
> nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely.

That's not the point. The point is precisely the power and coercion. Paying
someone or finding someone like-minded doesn't hit that button anywhere near
the same way that assault and blackmail does.

If you're strong-arming women into sex, it's not about the sex, it's about the
strong-arming. The very inappropriateness itself is the goal.

~~~
Banthum
People say this all the time, but is there any actual rigorous evidence or
argument for it?

As far as I can tell it's just a way to demonize and dehumanize a group of
really unpopular people in order to feel better about taking retribution
against them. Comparable to saying, "She didn't murder her kids because of
depression, but because she wanted them and her husband to suffer. The pain
itself is the goal."

So is this really a rent-paying belief? Or is it rather a way to feel good
about hating someone and absolve yourself from the responsibility to
understand the internal experiences of people who do bad things?

This is important, by the way. If the goal is to feel good about hating people
who did wrong, dehumanize away. If the goal is actually to prevent other
people from doing wrong, you need understand accurately why the wrong was
being done in the first place, and that's what I'm afraid isn't being done
here.

~~~
jaggederest
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who pays attention to the way
good people are seduced into bad actions by the exercise of power beyond
what's appropriate.

I do this precisely because I want to avoid situations where my behavior and
viewpoint will be compromised by the level of authority I wield.

The very point I'm _attempting_ to make, anyway, is that if you hand even the
best humans inordinate power they _will abuse it_. That's how power is. It's
not about the people - it's about the power structures we inhabit.

Reference the milgram experiment, the stanford prison experiment, whatever you
like. They're not definitive, by any means, but they show you what is
_possible_.

------
gexla
One of the most eye opening experiences I have ever had in the workplace was
in a sexual harassment class which was required for a big corp. The instructor
laid out the rules, but people in the class had a hard time grasping the
logical structure. Two different scenarios which clearly had the same
structure would trip people up by swapping out variables. I was never good
with math, but I picked up on these structures right way. Maybe the class
should have been taught as a philosophy class from the start. It was amazing
to me how difficult such an important subject was for people to pick up.

As difficult as sexual harassment is to learn and teach, I imagine most
smaller businesses / start-ups don't make much of an attempt, if at all.
Obviously HR is lacking. This might be a good place for improvement for a
start-up to tackle.

~~~
pvg
'Don't try to sexually force yourself on someone who just asked you to leave
their residence' is not a complex issue limited by inadequate HR training.
It's basic sane social behaviour. McClure didn't do this because he was
unaware of the intricacies of workspace laws and regulations. He did it
because he thought he could and would get away with it.

------
QuadrupleA
Good article - at first I was wary because of vagueness in the first few
paragraphs, terms like "inappropriateness", "sexual harassment", "non-
consensual sexual advances" etc. that are flung around so freely nowadays yet
so open to interpretation, and which often go viral and get people fired.

But in fact that was the point - that the devil's in the details and specifics
really help. And the specifics in her case were clearly not cool. Kudos for
putting them out there.

------
Mz
I will note a pattern I have noticed:

In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down,
but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty
consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to
get." The problem for women with careers is that walking away entirely from a
powerful man would mean walking away from all kinds of professional settings
where she is likely to run into him. Cutting him out of her life entirely
would be career suicide.

The one message we really need to get powerful men to get is this:

Working women are talking to you at all for the exact same reason working men
are talking to you. And it isn't because they think you are hot. They are
trying to make a business deal or further a career goal, not fulfill your
wildest fantasies.

I think this is why so many men persist in saying things like "I just misread
the situation." And we will keep hearing that until it is the cultural norm
for men to assume that women they work with are there to work, and that's it.

~~~
StevePerkins
A good point, but a grossly over-generalized one. Men "not taking no for an
answer" after rejection is the exception, not the general norm, even if it's
over represented in the VC scandal. That's why it's a scandal.

~~~
Mz
I think you are misunderstanding my remarks in some way. Nowhere did I use the
phrase "not taking no for an answer."

I am not talking about normal situations where it is possible for clear,
unambiguous communication to take place. I am talking about a gray zone that
makes it inherently challenging. I have written about this before:

[http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-
zon...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zone.html)

And I am saying we need to work at fostering a culture where people in power
default to an assumption that if there is any doubt, they need to err on the
side of assuming "This is about business, not romance. Period." Because my
firsthand experience and pieces like the one under discussion agree that, all
too often, a woman just can't seem to adequately signal "romance is NOT on the
table here" and also remain on good working terms with a man in power. That is
exactly the point I am trying to make. It has nothing to do with asserting
that _men don 't take no for an answer._

~~~
StevePerkins
I paraphrase, only because the exact quote was pretty long:

 _In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down,
but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty
consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to
get."_

Perhaps your intent was more nuanced than your literal text. Either way, men
in general do not "consistently" keep pursuing after rejection, just because
the female doesn't cut them out of their lives altogether.

~~~
Mz
I chose the phrase "make initial inquiries" very carefully. It is not intended
to describe a situation where men are openly and unambiguously hitting on a
woman. In my experience, in delicate situations, there is a feeling out
process. It isn't a bald question.

If you go back and read the article under discussion, he repeatedly asked her
to have wine with him. Sometimes she said _no._ Other times, she said _yes_
and it went fine. She herself was confused as to whether or not he was hitting
on her. It wasn't clear to her until it crossed some incredibly unambiguous
line.

If they were not working together, a woman sometimes saying _yes_ to wine and
sometimes saying _no_ but remaining on warm friendly terms could be called
_dating._ Studies show that it takes women longer to warm up to sex than it
does men. Most men are used to having to work at getting to _yes_
romantically. And the usual way you get there is by repeatedly pursuing
_social_ interaction. If the social interaction goes well, your hopes that it
might lead to sex are not dead yet.

Given that fact, it isn't crazy for a man to interpret these situations as a
potential budding romance -- unless you posit that she was ONLY there to do
business and needed contact with him because of his position of power.

I am generally pretty sympathetic to the man's side here, so it aggravates me
when I so consistently get accused of BS like this. Because when I try too
hard to make it clear I am not accusing men of anything, then I get called a
_rape apologist._

I keep waiting for my long track record of even-handed remarks on the topic to
pay off and get me interpreted as _not a man-hating bitch._ I am beginning to
think that is expecting too much of the world.

I feel strongly this is very much a situational problem. But no one seems to
want to hear that. People are too busy lining up on the side of the accusers
and planning witch hunts or on the side of the defenders and excusing the
behavior. And then everything I say gets interpreted through a lens of "which
side of this war are you on?" The answer is "Neither. I would like to broker a
peace deal." And that message goes unheard by people whose minds are made up,
and don't confuse them with the facts.

~~~
StevePerkins
Your post and bio give the impression of seeing yourself as an "HN celebrity",
frustrated at people purposely ignoring your blog. Are you aware of HN's
scale? I've been here for about 5 years, and have never heard of you prior to
an hour ago. I'd be astounded if a full 1% of HN's readership has clicked on a
single page on your blog, ever.

In reality, we seem to be in near-total alignment. Within a larger comment,
you had one statement that seems over-generalized. After _agreeing_ with the
gist of your post, I mildly and respectfully challenged that one over-
generalized statement.

That's not a big deal. It might catch a downvote or two, because HN is HN. But
that's what normal healthy human conversation sounds like, outside of any
particular echo chamber. It's not an attack, and not really even a defense.

Somehow you're now in a "witch hunt", or being called a "man-hating bitch", or
otherwise under attack from the "other side", etc. I can't even... uhh...
just, no... you're _not_. And if you feel like you have to take it to that
level, in order not to be called a "rape apologist", then maybe you run with
the wrong circles online.

~~~
Mz
I wrote a piece recently about the witch hunt atmosphere that is developing.

Just because you have never heard of me before does not mean I do not
routinely run into people who clearly know who I am when I have never heard of
them. That isn't delusion on my part.

After advising you that you misunderstood and clarifying, you basically
doubled down, thus positioning yourself as an adversary. Now you are attacking
me and making a lot of derogatory comments. This does not back up your
assertion that you were engaging in good faith and I am just overreacting.

If you and I were really on the same page, my clarification would have been
the end of the matter, not the start of escalating aggressive remarks on your
side.

------
losvedir
What a terrible story. I'm sorry she had to go through that and appreciate her
sharing it.

I'm curious about the legal aspect of it. "Sexual assault" is a crime, right?
The worst repercussions I hear from these stories are maybe a resignation at
best. But if this is truly a crime shouldn't it be prosecuted?

~~~
Geekette
Many victims decline to prosecute to avoid the mental toll the process takes,
including having to relive their trauma, having their credibility torn to
shreds and possibility of the perp being acquitted even in face of compelling
evidence. Trying to recover and generally move on with their lives is already
hard enough.

~~~
roywiggins
Depending on the jurisdiction, strictly speaking it's not up to the victim to
pursue charges. The prosecutor can bring charges whether the victim wants to
or not.

In practice if the victim doesn't want to testify there's usually no way to
get a conviction so it won't be prosecuted. But the decision lies with the
prosecutor.

(There are some exceptions- private prosecutions used to be the norm in
English common law, but the US largely didn't seem to inherit that portion
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sf...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sfla1)
)

[http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-
wh...](http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-what-does-it-
mean-and-who-does-it.html)

------
orthoganol
I like it - the all or nothing approach is terrifying as a guy, and defining
levels of inappropriateness with exact descriptions of actions is very helpful
for those who are freaked out they are going to unwittingly harass someone
they are attracted to even just acting naturally. I'm hopefully not belittling
the recipients of undesired advances of VC assholes like McClure, but I hope
it's also not wrong to say these scandals induce anxiety in a ton of well
meaning lower level guys who get circled over as part of the problem, and
thinking of a solution that considers this large segment of guys is nice to
hear.

~~~
emmab
Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no
goes a long way.

Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them
permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without
asking in the future?"

~~~
novia
Often the counter-argument to this is that it feels artificial, unnatural, and
it will definitely kill the mood. So I want to preemptively address it.

When a guy asks before touching me, and of course I'm already interested, it
makes me melt. It is so sexy and it definitely improves the mood. I just want
to point to myself as one data-point.

If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model walks
up to you and asks if she can rub your shoulders. Would you be like, "Uh, no,
by communicating with me you have completely killed my interest"?

~~~
codezero
I'm convinced the whole "kills the mood" line is coming from folks where the
mood never existed but they thought it did. It's basically victim blaming :/

Your example is spot on.

~~~
throwaway1572
As a person who asks, I can tell you that you're wrong. My spouse confided in
me (years after it happened) that when I asked to kiss them the very first
time, they thought it was kind of a turn-off and wished I had just done it.
(But they said "yes", so there's that.)

~~~
emmab
As a woman who is submissive sometimes, I totally want certain people to do
things to me without asking, but there are other people I don't want to do
these things.

Explicit communication is not a barrier for me experiencing submissiveness
because the fact I consented years ago to my partner doing such things to me
does not make it any less fun.

I'm definitely willing to forgoe some fun on the first date to avoid having it
done to me by someone I'm not into or don't feel safe around (separate
variables!).

------
laurentoget
There is one point i am curious nobody mentions. If we do not want companies
run like fraternity houses, how about not hiring actual fraternity alumni as
executives?

------
ori_b
I am glad to see more people speaking up. I also really like the policies
proposed at the end of this, and I would love to see them get implemented.

------
QuadrupleA
The mass flagging / censoring of comments people disagree with below seems a
little petty, I'm curious what the original posts are. I'd rather hear a dumb
opinion and make my own choice.

~~~
dang
Anybody who wants to can see all the original posts by setting 'showdead' to
'yes' in their profile.

Outright deletion of comments (or comment text) is comparatively rare and
always done by authors themselves.

~~~
QuadrupleA
Thanks, didn't know about that feature.

------
cm2012
Wow. Reading that, I would be too grossed out to touch the hand of someone
like Dave. Creep is not putting it strongly enough - serial sexual assaulter
is correct.

~~~
Pxtl
Yes, calling him creepy is horribly unfair to creeps everywhere.

------
michaelmrose
The obvious answer to avoiding workplace issues seems to be never mix business
with pleasure.

If the person who you proposition only has to consider the singular question
of whether or not they are interested in you their decision will be natural
and unforced.

Anyone in a workplace has to constantly consider how this interaction will
help or harm future prospects and even if no power differential exists may
feel pressured. Many people are weak and may feel dissatisfied or put upon,
many are shitty at expressing themselves, asserting themselves, or even at
analyzing their own feelings. Then people have to work together after
inevitably some of those interactions go bad.

People express this issue as its some complex minefield. It's easy. Just don't
do it. Get a hobby and meet people there.

Go to work do whatever you are paid to do and find romance on your own time.

~~~
guildwriter
Due to the diversity of human preference and desire, I don't think that's a
realistic course of action for a broad swath of humanity. People are going to
be attracted to each other irregardless of principle. In fact, you could even
argue that by pushing this sort of relationship towards the forbidden or
taboo, it highlights the appeal. When people are going to spend hours and
hours of time together, there's no helping the fact that feelings are going to
happen eventually.

It's also not hard to conceive of a person who wants a power relationship with
a strong, motivated, and ambitious person. That being said, where are you
likely to meet someone who is grinding out the hours to reach success?

None of this is to say your proposed approach is invalid. It's an approach
that works for some people. I just don't think it's realistic to expect that
it's going to be widely followed. As this article notes:

 _" Workplace romances are commonplace. Statistics indicate that anywhere from
40-47% of employees surveyed had been involved in a workplace romance. Beyond
the 47% involved, about 20% indicated they were receptive to an office
romance."_

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-
dating/20...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-
dating/201306/workplace-romance-motives)

------
Geekette
Clarification in response to comments that assume I'm the OP: It's not my
story, I just reposted from author's site.

------
apsec112
Thanks for stepping forward. It takes a lot of courage to come out publicly
with such a personal story, especially when the offender is as well-known as
Dave McClure.

------
faizmokhtar
Thanks Cheryl for sharing your story and thanks for contributing a lot to
Malaysian startup scenes.

------
l33tbro
First question: which PR agency hand-crafted that disingenuous apology on Dave
McClure's blog?

Second question: did 500 Startups foot the bill (the allegations are
kryptonite to their brand)?

~~~
Pxtl
I would think a paid professional pr firm would know not to half-ass an
apology and would do a better job.

------
gadders
As YC has a very strong policy in regards to sexual harrassment, are these
incidents going to affect how they deal with other VCs (either individuals or
companies)?

------
avenoir
We have half of the comments here trying to figure out what "sexual
harassment" actually entails which makes a pretty darn good point in my
opinion - people get triggered in different ways. This could be anything from
an actual sexual advance to a poorly placed bad joke or a simple
misunderstanding due to inability to read social cues. Some employers, usually
large corps, blur the lines even more by allowing and even encouraging dating
co-workers which presents a whole different perspective on this issue. Bottom
line is it's a grey area and I don't really see how we fight this by improving
incident reporting. I think if anything it would just make interacting with
female co-workers terrifying (it already is to some extent if you're a male).
I think this is a social issue and there has to be a mind shift of some sort
in order to combat this. Maybe even taking this to schools and teaching kids
workplace etiquette.

------
sgentle
I've seen a few comments on this and articles like this to the effect of "so
any time you proposition a woman it could be assault?" and I think it's worth
responding to that idea in general.

Yes, there is generally an expectation that men initiate romance, and that is
an unfair burden both on men (who have to do the propositioning) and women
(who have to decline unwanted propositions). For game-theoretic reasons, this
is difficult to change, but it is changing slowly.

In the mean time, restrictions on how to initiate disproportionately affect
men, and a lack of restrictions disproportionately affects women. Even more so
in situations of gender imbalance (look up "Petrie Multiplier" for more on
this). I believe it's for this reason that some men are resistant to "err on
the safe side" type policies; as long as they are expected to initiate, they
can't succeed without taking risks.

But it's impossible to address this without also including the effect of power
imbalance. Even in a world where women initiate 100% of the time, men would in
almost all cases still be more physically powerful, and sometimes hold other
kinds of social or institutional power. This power can be used to coerce,
assault or rape but, even if it isn't, the consequences of a power disparity
can be an implicit part of the equation (cf "I hope you can see your way clear
to letting Flynn go").

So, what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Sarah Kunst? Not
propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power
imbalance as a potential employer that made it more difficult for her to say
no. Worse still, "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or
hit on you" makes that relationship explicit.

And what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Cheryl Yeoh? Not
propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power
imbalance as a physically stronger man alone with her in her bedroom, and then
forcing himself on her when she said no. I repeat: he could only have done
this because he was physically stronger, and even if he didn't, the
possibility was there.

So to anyone who's wondering if this means men hitting on women is now
outlawed, I hope this can provide a healthy framework for thinking about it.
It's okay to hit on people, but avoid doing so in situations with a power
imbalance that could mean there are consequences for saying no. And also if
they do say no don't assault them.

Unfortunately, as a man, you probably have the ability to physically overpower
most women if you want. Hopefully you don't want, but it's worth considering
that you have that ability, and she may not know whether you're going to use
it.

For a shorter and funnier version of this line of thinking, I suggest this
clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE)

~~~
nnfy
I am pleased to see you attempt a logical exploration of this topic.

However, I object to a couple points. First, there is almost always potential
for consequences for saying no, so long as you allow a physical power
imbalance.

Second, and most importantly, you are neglecting that power imbalance forms an
entire framework for human sexual interaction, one which is as old as our
species. This is at a minimum a biological imperative (hormonal, genetic) and
an emergent psychological imperative (physical size/strength/endurance
differences). These natural drives are responsible for most men desiring power
and most women desiring powerful men.

Now suddenly, over the last few decades, we've turned this intrinsic human
nature on its head, and I think that is why this is such a difficult topic for
people to grasp/discuss.

I think people underestimate how far removed the current push for gender
parity is from human history. This is more of an experiment than most people
realize.

------
Insanity
It is unfortunate that these kind of things happen. They shed a bad light on
our industry as a whole due to (hopefully a few) rotten apples.

Thanks for writing this, takes courage!

~~~
cbhl
Let's stop perpetuating this myth that this is a "few rotten apples".

This is a systemic problem in our industry, and we need to all realize this,
so that we can start teaching each other what behavior is and is not
appropriate in a very clear, concise, and precise manner.

~~~
sethjgore
I agree that we can teach each other what kind of culture we want to instill,
and one that allows people to work in an environment that boosts their
potential.

However, from my observations, to flat out list a finite list of behaviorism,
will manifest yet another set of behaviorism, which will manifest another
list.

I do not view this as a simple systematic problem, but rather a deep-wedged
symptom of a sick society. We all are complicit.

A society that is focused on results and ego and success will always encourage
such behavior (of debasing others, exploiting others regardless of their being
— even white men are exploited and debased by other "higher-paying" white
men). No set of rules will change this until we change our society's culture.

The culture cannot change through scolding, but rather a deep, opening
conversation that will be conversed again and again until people find no use
for the word harassment or sexual harassment or the desire to hurt or debase
others in name of success.

~~~
olleromam91
Oh what a dream. If only.

------
whiddershins
I am seeing an enormous percentage of comments here flagged, including one of
mine which is a first for me on this site, or any site.

Upon trying to figure out what's going on I think we need a meta-instruction
for comments here?

Like, perhaps the intention is to keep comments focused more on the general
problem of sexual harassment in the industry and to not start making a bunch
of assertions regarding the specifics of the author's story?

Although I personally think khazhoux's comment pointing to alcohol being a
common factor is a pretty good one.

I'm actually having trouble understanding where the line is here so personally
going to run away from the thread, but I think a better indication of the
ground rules might be helpful to everyone.

~~~
panic
First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on
you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it
uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I
think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for
similar reasons.

I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're
doing this, you're providing tools for abusers to justify and minimize their
abuse. Obviously flagging isn't going to solve the problem on its own, but
maybe if I go into more detail it will help a little more.

Both comments focus on what their authors imagine themselves doing in a
similar situation:

 _> …I never drink more than a wee amount (one glass max) when I'm with co-
workers in any sort of work setting._

 _> …I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years, especially not someone who
has the strength of will to start a company._

Then they generalize their imagined behavior to what all people should do or
should be able to do:

 _> But on general principle, he shouldn't have gotten drunk (which I assume
he was??), nor she._

 _> Just because someone else did something wrong is no reason to carry it
with you for years._

Who are these comments being written for? In both cases, the person being
imagined is the person being abused. It's possible to read these as advice for
people potentially facing abuse: don't drink, don't dwell on the past.

There are a few problems with this interpretation. First of all, they take
abuse as a fixed part of the world that we just need to deal with: _" Because
in my world people do that."_ The conclusion is that people being abused need
to change their behavior to avoid it. But the truth is that the abusers are
the ones who need to change their behavior.

The second problem is that the advice doesn't work. People are abused whether
they drink or not. Memories and thoughts have a way of surfacing whether you
intentionally dwell on them or not. If you can't imagine an event haunting
Cheryl for years after she has explicitly told you that one has, the problem
is with your imagination, not her experiences.

So as advice, these comments are relatively weak. Is there a sense in which
they have a stronger function? Let's see:

"I never drink more than a wee amount" isn't excusing Dave's behavior
directly. But it makes a strong implication -- if you _do_ drink more than
that, you're less responsible for what happens. Do you think Dave kept pouring
scotch into her glass on accident? He knows society has a tendency to excuse
behavior from a drunk person that they'd never accept from someone sober.

"I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years" doesn't mean Dave's behavior
was inconsequential. But it makes a strong implication -- that the
consequences of his behavior would be much less if Cheryl didn't make such a
big deal out of it.

Both of these perspectives enable abuse. Abusers intentionally use alcohol to
provide cover for their behavior. Even when they were planning to do it all
along. Dave McClure abused his power to put Cheryl Yeoh into a position she
"shouldn't" be in -- so he could turn around and use the very fact she was in
such a position to minimize people's reaction to his abuse!

Then, when she admits how much the abuse affected her, he relies on comments
like yours to remind us that his role in this was incredibly minor -- just one
event that probably lasted less than a minute. The real abuse was just in her
head. I don't think you would put it this bluntly, but that's the story the
abuser is hoping you take away.

That is to say, the primary function of comments like these is not actually
providing advice to people who might be abused. Following this advice will not
help them. Whether intentionally or not, their primary function ends up as
tools that abusers use to justify and minimize their abuse. That's why I
flagged them -- to take these tools out of abusers' hands in whatever small
way I can.

~~~
QuadrupleA
So the mere idea of avoiding drinking, or that different people will react to
an event in different ways is so dangerous and empowering to potential abusers
that the entire HN readership needs to be protected from seeing it? Are we
adults here? Sorry to be critical, I'm sure you meant well. For a weak comment
though, "flagged" seems like a really extreme reaction.

~~~
panic
It's not the idea of avoiding drinking: it's the creation of a situation
(being drunk with coworkers) which you shouldn't be in. Once an abuser can get
you into such a situation, they have an excuse for their abuse -- you
shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.

And it's not that different people will react to an event in different ways:
it's the idea that you _could_ always have reacted to an event in a certain
way. If you didn't react to it that way, that's on you -- it's not the
abuser's fault.

Put enough of these "mere ideas" together and you get the culture responsible
for this environment of abuse that women are facing. We should try to chip
away at as many bad ideas as we can!

You're right that flagging may not be the right tool to use here, though.
Everyone says they want a reply, but in practice that tends to produce long
discussions that rarely end up anywhere useful. What would you suggest? Maybe
a mod could weigh in?

~~~
QuadrupleA
Agreed, ideas create culture - I guess I've found personally that respectful
discussion with those of opposing viewpoints is more productive than
'fighting' them or shutting them down entirely, which flagging kinda seems
like. Those have the paradoxical effect of making the person more defensive
and angry and work harder to promote their point. So a downvote and a reply
with a more convincing argument seems reasonable. I don't know the HN systems
that well though, I only post occasionally. And yeah, the discussions may not
go anywhere. That's democracy :)

------
qubex
_> By the way: any analysis on how the victim of the abuse made sub-optimal
decisions is _always_ victim-blaming, even if you add a disclaimer claiming
otherwise._

No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute
tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any
issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has
any right to shout me down or shut me up.

” _I would rather have questions that can 't be answered than answers that
can't be questioned._” — Richard Feynman

~~~
gizmo
Wait, so you have the right to raise every issue you wish but I don't have the
right voice my disapproval or attach a negative label to what you say? The
hypocrisy should make your head spin.

Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to
point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some
subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a
thread about sexual harassment, just like some comments are inappropriate at a
funeral.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
You are completely mischaracterizing qubex's point. The objection is not that
you are pointing out a specific statement is victim blaming, it's that you are
painting an entire topic as "off limits" by trying to label anyone who brings
up the topic, however respectfully and with a view toward future prevention,
as a "victim blamer."

Hacker News is one of the last places in the internet where I think there is
(comparatively) a minimum of tribalism in discourse. What qubex and I are
pushing back against is the idea is branding anyone who brings up this topic
(or any topic, really) as essentially "the enemy" regardless of their intent.

~~~
gizmo
Sexism is off-limits, and victim blaming is sexist and so as a consequence
off-limits. What is and what isn't victim blaming is well-defined: I'm not
making this up as I go along. So this isn't about me or my tribe.

I don't blame you or consider you "the enemy". Your understanding of victim
blaming is simply wrong, and I encourage you to look it up on Google if you
don't believe me.

------
newtem0
Not really a big deal to be honest. Innapropriate but not enough for a
scandal. She was inebriated and she gracefully fails to mention if he was, and
he was probably. Its not exactly the next cosby is it?

------
EdSharkey
Don't date women from work. Don't dip your pen in the company ink, guys. Just
from a power perspective, there's no way to get it right, even if you think
she's your peer.

~~~
mc32
That's good advice for people _already_ in a relationship. I don't think
that's good advice for singles. Outside of school (writ large) work is one of
the places people get to know each other, socialize and mingle. It would be
sad to see one of the main places people get to meet to be set "off-limits".

There is nothing mysterious. Just don't be crude. Don't buck convention. Know
accepted social norms.

~~~
EdSharkey
Oh goodness, why take that risk? Why would a single guy aching for sex start
their hunt in the workplace? Your concept of what the workplace is for is
really screwed up. Unwise. Foolish danger.

I have been told stories of companies with no-dating rules where inevitable
attraction and secret love affair between coworkers led them to both quit in
order to go public with their romance.

That's not what I'm talking about. Obviously, nature is powerful, and
attraction between coworkers can just simply happen. I'm not talking about
accidents, which are hopefully few and far between. I'm talking about
_conscious_ choices that men make.

It's not like there aren't equally convenient ways to meet women to those at
work. If you want a (chaotic) hookup, get on Tinder or Craig's List or the
local club. If you want the thrill of the meat market, try Match. If you'd
like to get married, goto eharmony.

------
siliconc0w
Not defending McClure but it's worth noting sexual assault and 'unwanted
touching' are different problems that require different solutions. Any
classification system used here should probably differentiate the two. When
you combine them you suggest they're the same which does a disservice to those
who have been sexually assaulted (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ).
The low-fidelity of language here confuses people which then confuses
statistics which leads to ineffective policy.

I do think there is a possible SAAS app here for employees to report these
incidents in a confidential way and to help shape the culture by providing an
immediate notification to the McClure-types that their behavior is both being
tracked and isn't going to be tolerated. This would promote immediate action
on the part of the company instead of needing a dozen or so claims, a viral
blog post, and or a nytimes article before action is taken.

~~~
rectang
> (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ).

That's not the definition of "sexual assault". It varies by jurisdiction, and
has been discussed extensively elsethread. "Unwanted touching" and "sexual
assault" overlap. More important than anatomy is consent.

~~~
siliconc0w
It's the definition in California. See penal code 243.4 By blurring the lines
you contribute to the problem - the author's entire goal in reliving and
blogging her experience is that the details matter and we need a sensible
framework to define and understand these issues or we can't address them.

~~~
rectang
Thanks for the statutory reference. I decided to research this more closely,
and looked into several specific definitions. The most widely known (and the
one I'd already seen) is the Justice Department's:

[https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-
assault#sa](https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa)

    
    
      Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior 
      that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. 
      Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual 
      activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, 
      child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.
    

However, the DOJ reference is not a statute. The other state statutes I looked
at (New York, Washington, Delaware, Texas) seem to define
"[aggravated/unlawful] [sexual/intimate] [assault/abuse/contact] similarly to
California, with "intimate parts" enumerated.

So, backing someone into a corner and forcibly attempting to kiss them might
not bring a sexual assault charge unless accompanied by groping. Nevertheless,
such actions can still result in charges of battery or false imprisonment.

I agree that we need clearer collective understanding of the issues involved.
However, the main concern remains consent. It's not "kisses OK, groping not
OK" \-- coerced intimacy is always problematic because it is coerced, no
matter which statutory lines are crossed.

------
Zikes
> Generalized sexist statements and behavior that convey insulting or
> degrading attitudes about women (e.g. Insulting remarks, obscene jokes or
> humor about sex or women in general)

This should be generalized to include both sexes. I often see insulting or
degrading comments about men by people in the tech world, especially with
terms like "mansplaining".

~~~
ab4570
I agree with you. I don't agree with you being down-voted. Complaining about
the down-voting does you no good though.

~~~
Zikes
I don't care.

------
monfrere
I have experienced similarly persistent (or arguably even more persistent)
unwanted sexual advances from other men, but I certainly didn't feel
"assaulted".

As a socially clueless gay man, I was hoping someone could help elucidate the
most problematic parts of McClure's behavior here. The two factors that stand
out for me are

1) McClure controlled the funding of the agency Yeoh was heading, so he was in
a position of power

2) McClure is a man and Yeoh is a woman, so McClure can be assumed to be more
physically imposing

Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's
behavior inappropriate? In any other context, I would consider asking someone
something a third time after two "no"s to be an example of annoying badgering,
but not necessarily harassment.

~~~
pvg
_Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure 's
behavior inappropriate?_

No, it would not be, at all.

"At this point, I led him to the door and told him he needs to leave. On the
way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a
corner, made contact to kiss me,"

