
Survey of YC female founders on sexual harassment, coercion by angels and VCs - coloneltcb
https://blog.ycombinator.com/survey-of-yc-female-founders-on-sexual-harassment-and-coercion-by-angel-and-vc-investors/
======
runako
The details are stunning. Nearly _20%_ of responders reported sexual coercion
or quid-pro-quo.

Given that there are responses which declined to report anyone, the actual
number is obviously higher. This is happening at the top startup accelerator
in the world, where there is likely to be more scrutiny than elsewhere. (The
problem is likely worse in other places.)

Kudos on publishing this research, great work.

~~~
roenxi
I'd prefer to see a bit more of a break up at the low-end of the scale.

> "18 experienced unwanted sexual overtures or sexual badgering"

Badgering is beyond the pale, "unwanted sexual overtures" are unwelcome but I
don't see how they are ever going away; if men don't make a first sexual
overture there aren't going to be a lot of men who end up having sex. Some of
those overtures are going to be unwanted, but the men basically have to try to
find out.

Things like Tinder where you can filter for "interested only" are pretty much
a new phenomenon and havn't really had time to influence the culture of anyone
aged over 30.

Anyway, I'd like to know how persistent these "unwanted sexual overture" is
before it is reported in the survey as harassment. Minor point in a larger
picture.

~~~
danharaj
Do you understand how repugnant you sound implying that some men need to use
businesswomen as captive audience for their sex drives or they won't get sex?

Let me remind you that a work setting is _nothing like Tinder_ , _nothing like
a bar_ , nothing like any place where trying to get laid is considered OK.

You wouldn't ask someone if they wanted to shag at a funeral, _would you_?

~~~
roenxi
> Do you understand how repugnant you sound implying that some men need to use
> businesswomen as captive audience for their sex drives or they won't get
> sex?

No, I'm implying there is a very high background rate of men asking women for
sex, and I havn't compared this instance to the background but I assume women
get propositioned at a very high rate _wherever_ they are.

> Let me remind you that a work setting is nothing like Tinder, nothing like a
> bar, nothing like any place where trying to get laid is considered OK.

My parents met in the workplace. I have a friends who have too. I havn't
looked up the statistics but I assume it is double-digit percentages of
marriages start as workplace relations. It is unfortunate if you think that
isn't acceptable, because it clearly is.

> You wouldn't ask someone if they wanted to shag at a funeral, would you?

I wouldn't, but I don't see why it would be unacceptable. There are a lot of
people at funerals who are't particularly committed to grieving but making a
statement of social support, and they'd just be there doing what they do at
any social event.

~~~
dbt00
> My parents met in the workplace. I have a friends who have too. I havn't
> looked up the statistics but I assume it is double-digit percentages of
> marriages start as workplace relations. It is unfortunate if you think that
> isn't acceptable, because it clearly is.

Conflating financial power relationship dynamics with garden variety workplace
romance is some serious moving of goalposts.

Seriously, one of the major reforms in venture capital in the last 25 years
has been to reduce the amount of power tripping that goes on between VCs and
founders. That's the idea that YC is founded on. This is another example, and
an incredibly shitty one. Why defend it?

~~~
roenxi
> Why defend it?

Because "unwelcome sexual advances" is a spectrum from acceptable to
unacceptable.

The acceptable part of that spectrum is very small (being a guy awkwardly asks
a girl for sex, she says no, and that is the end if it) and the unacceptable
part is very large (fondling, using pressure from corporate power, etc).

However, despite the fact it is small, the acceptable part of that spectrum is
important to protect because there are a lot of men who are not very socially
adept, but want to have sexual relation with women and don't know many outside
the workplace. They should be able to seek out relationships in their comfort
zone without risk of formal censure. I assume there are a lot of women in a
similar position.

In this particular instance "unwanted sexual overtures or sexual badgering" is
probably more of the badgering end that we don't want, but the language here
is important - there needs to be /some/ tolerance of unwanted sexual overtures
that do not lead to badgering. Being awkward, being wrong and misunderstanding
a situation isn't a punishable offense. Being persistent, using threats or
getting physical is.

And so I'd like to see a little more clarity on what the low-end standard
being used here is. It is important to the conversation. In a minor way.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_Because "unwelcome sexual advances" is a spectrum from acceptable to
unacceptable._

In a situation where there is a lot at stake, socially savvy people generally
want to know the answer will be "yes" before the question is asked.

Historically, when men were the primary breadwinners and women were expected
to be homemakers, a man asking for a date from a woman he had determined was
single was not likely to be causing big problems for anyone. If she said "No"
and he dropped it, no drama would ensue.

This is not true where they are business colleagues and she has career
aspirations.

I had an entry level job at a Fortune 500 company for over 5 years. I wanted
to get a better paying job more in line with my education in the IT
department.

One day, a senior programmer asked me for a date. I'm sure he had stopped to
consider if he was in the clear and determined he was. He wasn't doing
anything wrong and he wasn't going to get in trouble.

I'm equally sure he didn't stop to wonder how it impacted my career
aspirations. It basically killed any hope I had of getting a job in his
department. Simply asking me out closed doors for me.

I left the company shortly thereafter. I left for largely unrelated reasons,
but that incident made it clear to me I could basically give up all hope of
ever escaping the Pink Collar Ghetto I was trapped in because some powerful
man at the company saw me as _date material_ and never stopped to ponder how
that framing might impact me.

In over 5 years, he was the only person I ever met at the company who knew
what GIS was without me having to explain it. He never once wondered what my
career goals were, nor what my unusual skills might do for the company. Nope.
He just got all excited about the possibility of getting a date. Full stop.

This is the essence of why we are seeing studies like this one about the
impact on women in specific, even though anyone can be a victim of sexual
harassment.

~~~
sobani
> socially savvy people generally want to know the answer will be "yes" before
> the question is asked

If you need a trillion dollar idea: teach socially _un_ savvy people how to
recognize a yes before they have to ask the question.

I know you can make boatloads of money, because I am one of those unsavvy
people and every bit of information about dating basically comes down to:

"Here are 10 _hints_ that tell you she _might_ be interested. If you want to
know for sure, ask. Oh and she might be too polite to actually turn you down,
so here are 5 more tips to recognize when a yes actually means no."

~~~
DoreenMichele
If you aren't talented at figuring that out, then don't ask for dates in high
stakes situations. Only ask in low stakes situations where a _no_ isn't a big
problem.

This means don't ask colleagues for a date. Instead, ask social acquaintances
from other parts of your life.

Whether you are socially savvy or not, you should treat all business
associates first and foremost as people looking to benefit professionally from
their relationship with you. Treating women like their professional life is
irrelevant because you find them _hot_ is fundamentally not going to go good
places. It tends to undermine them professionally. This isn't a way to "win
friends and influence people."

~~~
exogeny
It is truly scary the number of men in this thread who apparently do not
understand what you're saying, as basic and obvious as it is.

~~~
DoreenMichele
When cultures go through radical changes, it is inevitable that some
percentage of people will continue to operate under "the old rules" long after
that has become problematic. If it isn't a problem for _them_ in specific,
they may honestly not realize it is A Problem.

Operating under the old rules is frequently not (apparently) problematic for
well established people who belong to a privileged class. For purposes of this
discussion, that would be men who make good money and see themselves as
"catches" because of it -- edit: which describes a large number of HN
commenters -- sometimes while being quite bitter about all the _gold digging
whores_ in the world and failing to see that if you bait your hook with money,
you shouldn't be surprised if that is the type of fish you attract.

Additionally, some blind spots are genuinely rooted in personal disability.
Lack of social savvy can be due to Autism Spectrum Disorder.

I have two sons who likely qualify as ASD. I find it very effective to give
them helpful tools for navigating the social landscape and avoiding the worst
errors they could make due to their personal handicaps. I find it quite
counterproductive to blame them as if they are being troublesome on purpose.

I try to keep that in mind when framing comments of mine. I'm human and I
don't always get it right by any stretch of the imagination. But that's where
I'm generally coming from.

------
UncleMeat
This is one of the real values of #metoo. A lot of people just don't know how
_incredibly common_ this sort of thing is. Catcalling, harassment, sexual
demands for career advancement, rape. It is all really really widespread and
it is very likely that almost every adult woman you know has experience some
form of sexual degradation.

~~~
jhfhhhf
"Catcalling, harassment, sexual demands for career advancement, rape" \- those
are not nearly in the same category. And it is presumably offers of career
advancement in exchange for sex, not sexual demands.

I'm sorry - I don't approve of sexual harassment, but with all the hysteria, I
am still not sure how often women simply consider sexual interest to be
harassment. It seems to me sexual interest is a normal aspect of human life.
And being attractive also has advantages, that the #metoo crowd never
mentions. We don't really know how many women actually benefited from being
attractive. Weinstein claimed many women took him up on his offer, after all.

~~~
neffy
Not very often at all. We know the difference. We know, or learn quite
quickly, as do the vast majority of men, how to politely say no, to those who
wish to be polite.

Stop assuming this is hysteria, it's not. It's a collective, we're just tired
of this. And let me also offer some quick and dirty math to support that it's
not a majority of men. Let's assume 1% of men don't know how to be polite and
in fact enjoy being abusive. They do this on average 1/week to a randomly
chosen woman. Within a relatively short time every woman will have had at
least one unpleasant experience.

For the most part these individuals pick on people they presume to be easy
targets, so some women get treated much worse than others, just as men who are
perceived to be easy targets equally have problems - probably with the same
guys. That's also why the power dynamics play into it, the definition of easy
target depends on that. And at some point, everybody just gives up, deals with
their situation as best they can, and tries to never go upstairs ever again in
Yale frat houses.

~~~
sololipsist
Do you understand that if you perceive non-harassment as harassment, you're
perceiving it as harassment, so _of course_ you think you're not misperceiving
it? Like, you get that reality is sometimes different from your perception of
it?

If someone suggests you're misperceiving something and your only reply is "I'm
not because I know I'm not," you have an _obvious_ epistemological problem.

~~~
munchbunny
If it's one woman who stands out in complaining about harassment, then maybe
you have an argument. But you have to believe that a giant chunk of the female
population are oversensitive and have siege mentalities in order to actually
make a counterpoint to the study.

Do you actually believe that many women are oversensitive to harassment?

~~~
jhfhhhf
Not really a giant chunk, just a very vocal chunk which might well just be a
minority.

Besides, I believe that women are often the target of sexual interest. I just
don't believe that it is such a horrible thing as some of them proclaim. At
the very least, many don't really have the comparison to what it is like to be
unattractive, which is not very pleasant, either.

Many people expend a lot of money and time to become more physical attractive.
Few people expend effort to become less attractive.

What's more, if you complain about being "sexually harassed", at the same time
you signal "social proof" of you being attractive. So telling such stories is
a double whammy: you can show proof that you are attractive, and get some pity
points and protection, too.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Besides, I believe that women are often the target of sexual interest. I
> just don't believe that it is such a horrible thing as some of them
> proclaim.

Harassment isn't the same as interest.

Heck, _expressions of interest_ aren't the same as interest.

You are insulting men by equating male sexual interest with harassment.

> What's more, if you complain about being "sexually harassed", at the same
> time you signal "social proof" of you being attractive.

No, you don't.

Because the people who actually take accusations of sexual harassment
seriously don't associate it with attractiveness (people who habitually defend
harassers or who are serial harassers themselves like to associate them, at
least rhetorically, as part of a defense against harassment claims by arguing
that the accuser isn't attractive enough to harass, but that's about as far as
the association goes.)

------
jVinc
I'm curious why only survey female founders? It seems like an odd data
damaging move which is based on an inherent assumption which is ironically now
not backed by data. And it would have been easy to just send the same survey
out to some of the male founders while you where at it.

Not even taking men into account seems to passively push the rather sexist
mantra that men should just "suck it up" and not actually be taken serious in
cases or sexual coercion and quid-pro-quo situations.

I'm not trying to argue that woman are not disproportional represented in
these case, however why not just include everyone? You state Callisto is a
"non-profit dedicated to building tech to combat sexual assault and
harassment." if that is the case and it's not just for assault and harassment
against woman, then why self-limit the scope of your survey?

And if the answer is "we would have just found no-one had any issues anyway"
then I restate the question, why not just send it out to everyone and show
this disproportion with data instead of just making it an assumption?

~~~
anjanarajan
Hey there - Anjana (CTO of Callisto) here. You're absolutely right - this
problem is not just unique to women, and male founders experience this too (we
know that reporting rates are extremely low among men because of the stigma
involved.) In fact, our current product for college students (Callisto Campus)
is actively used by survivors of all genders. Given that VC-funded founder
community is predominantly male, there might be even more male founder-
survivors than female.

For the survey, we started with a small list of female founders that we
thought we could get a high response rate from. We definitely are interested
in doing surveys of all genders.

Callisto Expansion for Founders is launching on November 15th and it is for
founders of all genders, not just for women.

~~~
jVinc
So you admit freely that you actively tried to bias your survey. I admire that
you are honest about it, but I'm extremely confused as to why you are honest
about that it seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot twice. Firstly
by fudging the survey and secondly by admitting it.

Was the intention to manipulate the rates in order to get better PR for
Callisto? It seems such an odd move to damage any scientific credibility you
could have wished for right out the gates if you intend to honestly change
things. I understand the mentality of "Well we are fudging the numbers but its
for a good cause so we'll do it anyway", but you do realize that down the road
it gives a carte-blanche option of those you wish to pressure into changing to
just say "Well we don't give two cents what Callisto says, they've
historically fudged their surveys and as such we disregard them completely"?

~~~
felixhandte
When you accuse Anjana of (admitting to) intentionally biasing the survey, I
think you're referring to this statement:

> [we sent the survey to people] that we thought we could get a high response
> rate from.

I understood that to mean that they sent the survey to people they expected
would fill it out, not that they sent the survey to people they expected would
fill out the survey in any particular way. Is that an interpretation you
considered and rejected for some reason?

------
beloch
"Later this fall, they are launching Callisto for founders. Callisto detects
serial perpetrators of sexual coercion and assault, and connects survivors to
each other and their options for taking action to protect their community.

Founders will be able to use Callisto to securely store the identities of
perpetrators of sexual coercion and assault. These identities will be
encrypted in a way that not even the Callisto team can view. If multiple
founders name the same perpetrator, they will be referred to an attorney who
can then decrypt the founder’s contact info and reach out to provide them with
free advice on their options for coming forward, including the option to share
information with other victims of the same perpetrator."

\-------------------

Collusion between witnesses can derail a court case. The best way to prevent
charges of collusion is to limit communication between witnesses. This system
absolutely should put an attorney in touch with the founders to build a case,
but it should not put them in touch with each other. At least, not until
_after_ pressing legal charges is ruled out.

------
emtel
I would like to know what percentage of VCs/angels are responsible for the
reported incidents. If most founders are pitching to 10 VCs (which does not
seem like an unrealistic number), it would be possible for even a single bad
actor to be responsible for these statistics.

I doubt it _is_ a single bad actor, but I bet its highly asymmetric, since
most offenders are likely serial offenders.

~~~
hypatiadotca
Your intuition is borne out by the research into repeat undetected rapists,
fwiw: [https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-
pr...](https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/)

TL;DR, of the men asked a series of questions about sexual misbehavior that
met legal definitions of attempted / completed rape but did not use the “r”
word, 6-13% admitted to at least one offense, and 50% of those across both
studies were repeat perpetrators with an average of 6 offenses each (and a
median of 3, so there were some who were super-offenders).

The studies cited only looked at male perpetrators, an obvious limitation, but
I think the work is really relevant nonetheless.

~~~
entwife
Surveying male funders, regarding their self-reported sexual behaviors and
attitudes toward sexual expression, would be interesting as well. Are the same
number of incidents reported by each gender? Why are men (mostly men) doing
this? Have they experienced any feedback or consequences?

------
mindgam3
This is seriously great work. Thanks to all involved for making it happen. My
one quibble is, why limit this to only female founders? Male founders can also
experience sexual harassment and coercion from authority figures. I am
speaking from personal experience.

Although the specific form of harassment may be sexual, fundamentally it isn't
about sex. It's about abuse of power.

To be clear, I am 100% behind all efforts to reduce harassment in all forms,
and I am aware that the % of female founders who have experienced harassment
is higher than males. But I guarantee that the male % is greater than 0, and
it would be constructive to have these perspectives included in future work.

------
rjzzleep
I asked this question below and apparently it warranted massive downvotes:

Is there any data on how many of the angels and VC's have a background
engineering, math, sciences vs. law, business and others?

It seems to be that correlation requires more than just, he's a guy, he get's
more. She's a women she gets sexually harassed, she get's less. In one of the
US offices I worked in I kept getting a lot of shit from some colleagues and a
middle manage who's wife was one of the first employees and highly
influentual. A year after I left, an ex colleague tells me that a good friend
of that lady, also a lady, that didn't like me told everyone I talked shit
about her breasts. Germany, half a year in, turns out the girls in the company
are talking about my cute ass.

Is the difference that they did it behind my back, besides proactively? Can
power dynamics really be boiled down to a plain men vs. women? Nothing about
demographics, social context, history etc.?

Are we saying that Elizabeth Holmes is treated the same as some no name
immigrant female founder? Or a random no name immigrant male founder even?

~~~
gk1
There's no implied causation here ("correlation")... It's straightforward: The
women reported experiencing sexual harassment. Does it make it any better if
the sexual harassment happened because they're female _and_ a mathematician?

~~~
mooseburger
He wasn't talking about the field of the women, but of the harassers. Yes it
does changes things if the harassers are primarily non-STEM, given this is
Hacker News. What are we supposed to do about the culture outside our field?

~~~
vec
Well, for a start, we could be a lot more thoughtful about who we're willing
to accept funding from.

------
NoblePublius
Did anyone survey female founders who consciously leveraged their sexuality to
their benefit? I’m a gay man in the VC world and this happens to me regularly.

~~~
ionforce
Can you clarify what "this happens" refers to? What happens to you regularly?

~~~
NoblePublius
Doe eyed conventionally attractive women with mediocre pitch decks, usually
for fluffy consumer goods (“Warby Parker for mascara”, “Casper for Yoga Mats,”
“purse with a battery in it”), showing up to pitch in high heels with tight
shirts. All. The. Time.

------
jacquesm
A couple of notes:

(1) There are VCs that are female friendly from the get go, rather than as an
afterthought, for instance
[http://www.karmijnkapitaal.nl/](http://www.karmijnkapitaal.nl/)

(2) What is also interesting to research is what the difference is in capital
raised for what %age of equity vs teams consisting of all-males.

(3) The study started off with a self-selected group, which might affect the
results either way, it would be good to repeat it across a larger number of
subjects chosen at random.

~~~
atomical
What VCs aren't female friendly?

~~~
gk1
I was just as confused as you, but then I found this on that website:

> We believe in the power of diversity. We therefore invest in companies that
> are led by mixed management teams, consisting of a balanced combination of
> women and men.

They exclusively fund mixed-gender founding teams, which (I think) is unique.

------
shafyy
A small anecdote:

I'm a male, my co-founder is a female.

We once went to a meeting with a VC (in San Francisco), and at the end he told
us the story about why he didn't become a priest. Because when he was in an
all-boys school, they always had one afternoon off per week. And they would go
to the milkshake place and (and I'm quoting here) "everytime the girl working
there turned around to stick the cups into the milkshake machine, her little
butt would wiggle". He made this this butt grabbing motion with his hands.

And the way he told the story was exteremly unsettling, you could see his
horniness through his words and the way he moved. Almost as if he was talking
about a juicy steak he ate.

That story was 100% unrelated to our business or any other topic we were
discussing. The worst part is, all 3 of us laughed. Only a minute after I
realized that I should have said something.

The point of my story is that in that moment, I was almost in a shock-like
state and didn't't know what to say. I was taken by surprise. My co-founder
said that she felt super uncomfortable, and was happy that she wasn't in this
room with him alone.

Not sure where I can report this, as Callisto seems for schools only?

------
asabjorn
As a survivor I can say sexual assault is terrible. Before we make any
conclusion on the numbers, 88/384=22.9% of the female founders responded and
32.5% were given the chance to participate. Is the sample representative of
the whole? How were the 32.5% of female founders that were given a chance to
respond selected? If this is a representative sample then this is a shockingly
high percentage of unwanted sexual contact.

Also, I wonder if we can get a bit more detail on what situations these
happened in and what exactly happened so that we can discuss other reasonable
measures we can all participate in.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
The pool is 125, not 384.

> we helped Callisto send a survey to 125 of the 384 female founders

The pool of 125 was based on who signed up for an email list.

> Callisto chose to send the survey to the 125 founders who signed up for the
> YC female founder email list. They choose this group under the assumption
> that these founders would welcome being reached out to for the survey
> because they had signed up proactively to this email list.

There's certainly some room for sampling bias, but not nearly as much as you
claim. I also strongly disagree that this is shocking: it's difficult to make
good estimates, but various surveys are often in excess of 60% for women:
[http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/feature/10906109/Sexu...](http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/feature/10906109/Sexual-
Harassment-Statistics-Is-the-Truth-in-the-Numbers.html)

20% is below a reasonable minimum estimate:
[https://fairygodboss.com/articles/sexual-harassment-
statisti...](https://fairygodboss.com/articles/sexual-harassment-statistics)

Now, this is a more specific survey, not just _any_ sexual harassment, but
these numbers _should not be shocking_. One of the core messages of the me-too
movement is that _these numbers should not be shocking, this is the reality,
and ignorance of this can contribute to the problem_.

~~~
asabjorn
Thanks. Still trying to figure out how the terms were defined in the survey to
gain an understanding of what the experiences were. Do you know how the survey
defined sexual overtures, sexual badgering, sexual coercion, quid-pro-quo and
unwanted sexual contact? Does these terms mean different things in the survey?
E.g is quid-pro-quo also sexual badgering? is unwanted sexual contact also
sexual coercion?

Also, do you know if these experiences were when they were part of YC or
anytime?

------
ummonk
Good stuff. One concern with Callisto though: What stops a serial perpetrator
from reporting himself (using an alias) to be able to identify anyone else who
has reported him?

~~~
tetrep
It sounds like you'd need to lie to a lawyer, which (I assume has) legal
implications:

Users of this product will be able to enter the identity of their perpetrator
into the escrow. This data can only be decrypted by the Callisto Options
Counselor (a lawyer), when another user enters the identity of the same
perpetrator. If the perpetrator identities match, both users will be put in
touch independently with the Options Counselor, who will connect them to each
other (if appropriate) and help them determine their best path towards
justice. The client relationships with the Op- tions Counselors are structured
so that any client-counselor communications would be privileged.

edit: from [https://www.projectcallisto.org/callisto-cryptographic-
appro...](https://www.projectcallisto.org/callisto-cryptographic-approach.pdf)

~~~
forapurpose
> It sounds like you'd need to lie to a lawyer, which (I assume has) legal
> implications

There are no legal implications from lying to a lawyer that are different than
lying to a software developer or anyone else, at least not that I can think
of. I suppose communication with lawyers is more likely to be in situations
where lying has legal implications, such as in legal proceedings. But if you
lie on the witness stand, the problem is not that you lied to the lawyer but
that you lied to the court.

------
rajacombinator
This sounds like a high-tech, low-effectiveness solution. A lawyer reaches out
and discusses their options? That’s easy. 1) take some kind of legal action,
get outgunned by wealthy VC, blacklisted by VC community as a litigious
founder, tank your startup with distractions. Or 2) keep quiet.

The real solution if YC wants to use their top-of-food-chain position is to
name, shame, ban these investors from YC invites, and - most importantly -
target their LPs. No need for a tech platform. I make no judgement as to
whether that is appropriate or something YC wants to undertake.

------
exogeny
I'd be curious to know what YC is doing about these VCs - obviously telling
them to go fuck themselves w/r/t demo day and other program access is a start,
but what else? This is where YC has a platform to be a part of the solution
and name names.

~~~
jnovek
YC advises founders on who they should raise money from. They also pick who to
invite to demo day. It’s not all the leverage in the world, but the valley is
small and, for a VC partner, deal flow is everything.

For those women who do want to take a stand — and I understand why the
majority don’t, there is a massively lopsided power dynamic between founders
and investors — YC is providing resources (according to the article).

Edit: Also, maybe someday they’ll be in a position to name names, but right
now it risks the anonyminity of those reporting. As an alum I hold YC to a
high standard — its likely the most distinguished thing on my resume — and if
they’re in the position to out the bad guys someday but don’t for political
reasons, I’ll be just as mad as you are.

------
kragen
I wonder if it's intentional that they named the system Callisto. In
mythology, Callisto was raped (in Ovid's account, violently); she became
pregnant and, in punishment for being raped, was either killed or transformed
into an animal, at which point her own son did not recognize her and attempted
to kill her. Or, in another account, her father cut her son into pieces to
revenge himself on the rapist. It's all rather confused.

My point is that none of these stories seem like the kind of treatment I would
like to promise to sexual assault victims. It makes me question the founders'
motivations; it's a bit like naming a Messianic Jewish club "The Final
Solution", except that of course 100% of the people who might consider joining
a Messianic Jewish club already know what that phrase connotes.

------
hal9000xp
I don’t live in US. While I understand what’s real offense (including
disrespectful jokes), I have concern about “guilty till proven innocent”.

If I’m attracted to someone and I want to date. How you can ask to go out
without risk of being accused of sexual harassment?

This is not sarcastic question. This is especially important if you as a male
is not very good at reading subtle social cues.

P.S. I really don't see why it got downvoted. There is no hidden message here.

~~~
the_gastropod
If you're the person's superior at work: don't. If you're a peer, you use your
words and respectfully ask if they'd be interested in going out.

~~~
cimmanom
This. And if she declines, you respect that and treat her professionally,
without retaliating.

------
cm2012
Good on YC for doing this survey.

~~~
your-nanny
I agree. However similar surveys should be conducted of male employees. Sexual
harassment of males is systemically underreported.

~~~
jnovek
I see this as a rising tide. The amount or women sexually harassed appears to
be much higher than the amount of men. By establishing policies that benefit
the biggest victim group, you can pave the way to better policies for all the
groups.

Think of it as social triage.

I also suspect that YC will take a man reporting a sexual assault as seriously
as a woman. In my experience YC is open minded and egalitarian.

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
I just see it as sexist. "Appears to be much higher" is an unscientific basis
for sexism. I think that this might just be because members of this community
are mostly men, so male->female harassment being more common is a statistical
certainty. But the same goes for the ratio of, for example, heterosexual men
to homosexual men, and anyone in those demographics affected by harrassment
are left out in the cold. We have a [dead] example in this thread of a male
victim who has been the target of female harassment.

You don't fight sexist behavior with more sexist behavior. Just conduct the
survey of everyone. Use demographics after the fact to establish trends, don't
go into it with bias.

In other words: the methodology used here _literally_ covers up sexual
harassment. It's just a sex no one cares about.

------
seshagiric
Great initiative, one suggestion though for Callisto and YC, it may help to
publish the names of people who have access to the reports filed on Callisto.

------
sonnyblarney
Those numbers are way too high.

I always thought that investors might be looking for a date or something ...
not quite professional ... but 'quid pro quo' ... my god man. Greasy.

------
gowld
One of the main ways that organizations (schools, churches, etc) defend
against abuse is with a simple rule: authority figures are not allowed 1:1
private communication or contact with someone under their power, and members
are encouraged to always stay in the presence of a trusted companion during
all activities. This greatly reduces the possibility of getting into an
ambiguous situation where abuse can happen without a 3rd-party witness, by
making the absense of a witness its own violation.

This isn't 100% practical in the business world, but could be quite helpful,
and valuable in its own right to avoid single-points of information failure in
the business.

With modern technology, recording conversations (with the knowledge and
consent of both parties) can be a practical alternative when humans are not
available to accompany.

~~~
User23
In other words, follow the Mike Pence rule.

~~~
stephencanon
The “Mike Pence rule” applies only to women, limiting their opportunities for
advancement (and leaving men vulnerable). You have to apply it to everyone.

~~~
User23
I'd like to see the Survey of YC male founders on sexual harassment to support
this claim.

------
pytyper2
The process they have implemented is great. They should execute the survey
again to include all genders. Yes, I saw the note regarding why only females
were surveyed.

------
auganov
Guessing by the numbers I'd assume "overtures" and "badgering" are more severe
than the catch-all "harassment". But can't be sure. Also "coercion or quid-
pro-quo" being so close in numbers to the former makes it even more confusing.

------
osazuwa
15 experienced a quid-pro-quo?

Am I reading this wrong, or does actually mean 1/6 women founders were asked
to exchange sexual favors for investment?

Holy shit.

------
rhacker
This is a good step. However, I really believe the largest hurdle to overcome
is gender bias. Women get comments from everyone on how they should behave
many times over that of a man will get in their lifetime.

------
pokoleo
I applaud YC's blog post. However, they should probably go into more detail
(or link) about how this is possible:

> encrypted in a way that not even the Callisto team can view.

> If multiple founders name the same perpetrator, they will be referred to an
> attorney who can then decrypt the founder’s contact info and reach out to
> provide them with free advice on...

What's stopping the Callisto team pretend to be an attorney? Attorneys can
decrypt the founder's contact info.

------
losvedir
Can someone clarify the stats a little bit?

The post mentions "19 founders" and then breaks it down into 18, 15, and 4. Is
the "19" an error (I notice that's 15+4, perhaps it's missing the "18"
group?), or can women be counted in multiple categories? If that's the case,
it seems to me like the first category should include the second and third, so
wouldn't that one be more than 19?

~~~
acchow
> The post mentions "19 founders" and then breaks it down into 18, 15, and 4.

Some founders reported more than one incident.

------
pi-squared
"Innocent until proven guilty"

This has to stop, we are going into territory of assuming guilt because
someone said so. Women can be bad as well. I know it's unpopular to say this
today. I get that the problem is huge and I'm not defending true harassers,
but you are losing valuable justice principles here. Assuming someone is
guilty because they are a certain gender (male in this case) or innocent
because they are another (female) is as bad as any discrimination over the
ages. Humans are good in overgeneralizing and sending this survey to women
only is not scientific and it's not fair. Assuming things are true because
someone says so has led us to bad paths in history. Let's have a talk about
what is the correct way to find a solution to the problem because false
accusations can ruin a life as well as not speaking up.

------
hkai
> You can report at any time, even years after the incident took place. The
> report will remain confidential.

Kudos to YC for really making this a better environment for everyone.

------
samirm
Not that there would be a lot of these, but how are they managing fake/false
reports? Is that even possible while maintaining privacy?

------
graphememes
It's almost like other people are humans just trying to do their jobs to feed
themselves and their family.

------
ingmarheinrich
Restricting this to female founders is highly sexist.

------
vandot
Wow, maybe YC and HN are coming around to pervasive inclusion issues in tech.
Until I see some action though, I'm left with the memory of that time I posted
survey results about women in Seattle tech scene and it was flagged.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13558116](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13558116)

I see that a thankful comment on this article is already flagged, so... seems
like much has not changed.

~~~
beat
I've noticed that _any_ sort of progressive/inclusive comments get
aggressively downvoted on HN. It's sad and frustrating.

~~~
nailer
I find the opposite - I've been on HN around a decade, a few months ago,
during a discussion on living in SV I mentioned that the valley is a cultural
wasteland. dang said this was a 'slur' and not acceptable on HN.

The idea that it's unacceptable to criticise the culture of an area, and that
people need to be protected from this idea, would be unthinkable on Startup
News.

~~~
Spooky23
The whole point here is to have more signal than noise, and it's usually
successful. I made a similar comment a few years ago about another geography
and got a similar response. It gave me pause.

Reflecting on it, the way dang and others handle these things is right, if you
have a point, you can make it without making an insulting generalization and
characterization.

If you don't, at the end of the day, whatever point you try to make is wiped
by the visceral response.

~~~
nailer
I'd be surprised if dang or others took offense to saying "Ohio is a cultural
wasteland".

Removing all color from speech makes the world a very boring place.

Criticising bay area culture is not a 'slur' and saying that is more
inflammatory than the original statement.

------
femto113
Over 20% of female founders are experiencing harassment or coercion and the
response is to implement a reporting system to identify serial offenders? This
is absurdly inadequate, does nothing to prevent harassment, and leaves the
burden on the victims rather than the perpetrators. It should be incumbent on
YC to ensure that before any angel or VC is given access to any founders that
they are screened for such behavior, including a background check for
incidents that happened before they got involved in YC. Anything less is just
posturing.

~~~
shantanubala
But how do you conduct a background check without a database of reports from
people who have experienced harassment?

Unfortunately, most of the time, this gets swept under the rug. This way, at
least that background check will actually reveal information once the relevant
data is collected.

~~~
femto113
There's an entire industry of companies that perform background checks, this
is not a novel problem. You can also require potential investors to sign a
contract that they've never committed harassment, list any times they've been
accused of harassment, entered into a confidential settlement, etc. with some
significant penalty if they're caught lying.

~~~
beat
Unless that "significant penalty" includes somehow removing that VC from the
company's cap table without harming the company, then the cure might be worse
than the disease.

Imagine the havoc that could be caused by a publicly shamed VC with a board
seat and a 10% chunk of the company. And, as we learned from the tale of Peter
Thiel and Gawker, one of the advantages of being a billionaire is you can
afford to squander millions of dollars on petty vengeance.

~~~
femto113
The point is to screen out these people before they get to the investment
stage. The scenario you describe is as likely (or even more likely) to happen
with the system YC just put in place, since it will take at least two reports
to trigger any consequences.

~~~
beat
Unfortunately, in many cases, those VCs are already on the cap tables of
founders that could report. So it's a problem.

Two reports triggering an exclusion from YC demos and rounds would be a strong
incentive. But one report leading to an inquiry from YC might prevent
incidents in the future, too, for fear of losing a key deal flow.

------
xtrapolate
> "we helped Callisto send a survey to 125 of the 384 female founders who have
> participated in YC"

Anyone aware of similar efforts to survey the male founders?

~~~
dopamean
Just xtrapolate from these numbers.

~~~
xtrapolate
> "Just xtrapolate from these numbers."

They could've simply involved the male population as-well, but for reasons
unknown, chose not to.

~~~
danso
The reasons are not unknown. The vast majority of VCs are male, and the
majority of known harassment incidents have involved male-on-female
interactions. This is not to say that male-on-male and female-on-male
harassment doesn't exist. But if this is one of the first surveys of its kind
for YC, makes sense to design it around the population that currently seems to
be the most affected.

------
NoblePublius
Where’s the control survey against which we can judge the significance of
these figures?

------
stephengillie
This whole thread is a dumpster fire. Between this and the recent drug
threads[∆][¶], this community has revealed its toxic nature. It's unhealthy to
be part of this community, and from this point forward, I will recommend
against Ycombinator and related investment and incubation, purely on moral
grounds.

[∆][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18205005](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18205005)

[¶][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18193884](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18193884)

------
forapurpose
Those numbers, which are horrible, are for relatively powerful women. Most
women can't call Sam Altman and ask for help; they are not in-demand, people
that powerful organizations feel a need to please. Just imagine what the
numbers are for the vast majority of women with less power and influence.

Imagine the mid-level manager, the run-of-the-mill coder, the cafeteria
worker, the janitor? Many of those people can't afford to lose their job and
have less power protect their careers. And theoretically they may be more
likely to be victims: Men distinguish based on physical attraction for these
purposes, not status, and they may see these women as more vulnerable and
therefore as easier targets. Are you going to try to sexually coerce the VP at
Airbnb or the caterer's junior assistant?

You know what the perpetrators say: 'Do you know who I am?' 'It will be your
word against mine. Nobody will believe you.' 'You'll never work again.'

Those people need a Callisto too - they need one far more (and maybe Callisto
already does that).

