6 Female Founders Accuse VC Justin Caldbeck of Making Unwanted Advances (techcrunch.com) 419
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Yesterday The Information reported on allegations made by half a dozen women working in the tech industry who say they have faced unwanted and inappropriate advances from Silicon Valley venture capitalist, Justin Caldbeck, co-founder and managing partner of Binary Capital. The women include Niniane Wang, co-creator of Google Desktop and a prior CTO of Minted; and Susan Ho and Leiti Hsu, co-founders of Journy, a travel planning and booking service. The Information also talked to three other women who said Caldbeck made inappropriate advances to them. It says these women did not want their names disclosed for fear of retaliation from the VC -- and because of wider concerns they might suffer a backlash from men in the industry who don't see inappropriate advances as a problem. Among the allegations made to The Information are that Caldbeck sent explicit text messages to women; that Caldbeck sent messages in the middle of the night suggesting meeting up; that Caldbeck suggested going to a hotel bedroom during a meeting; that Caldbeck made a proposition about having an open relationship; and that Caldbeck grabbed a woman's thigh under the table of a bar during a meeting. Several of the women reported finding Caldbeck's advances so awkward they gave up on continued dealings with him. In Caldbeck's initial statement, he "strongly" denied the allegations and claimed: "I have always enjoyed respectful relationships with female founders, business partners, and investors." However, in response to The Information's story, his tone changed significantly: "Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There's no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it." Caldbeck has since released a full statement to Axios, where he says he "will be taking an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital..."
yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably largely true,
probably what he did isn't illegal (just awkward),
and he's probably already been punished by his company.
tbh there's no reason to publicize anyone in this story, the situation's been handled. Let people move on with their lives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, it's been verified by the guy. He's admitted his guilt, apologized, and stepped down. No "probably" about it.
Second, this is a tech site, and we're talking about venture capital in the tech sector, so given all that, plus it undeniably being true, it's certainly an appropriate story for slashdot.
Third, if the story hadn't been publicized so much, he would have stuck with his original lies, while slandering the women by basically calling them liars.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's been verified by the guy. He's admitted his guilt, apologized, and stepped down. No "probably" about it.
For anything reported in the news, there's a probability distribution. It's probably true.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, this is a tech site, and we're talking about venture capital in the tech sector, so given all that, plus it undeniably being true, it's certainly an appropriate story for slashdot.
...according to the very broad view that would probably include stories on what company founders eat for breakfast. My, do I miss the old /. that would prioritize technical news over this nonsense...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if the story hadn't been publicized so much
When public opinion turns against you, it doesn't matter what you say, you're 'guilty', and denying it only makes it worse.
He absolutely did not admit his guilt, there was no description of the exact events that happened by either party.
The "sexual harassment" witch trials continue, fueled by bleeding hearts of the naive (to put it the nicest way possible), burning independent businessmen at the stake, paving the way for further acquisition and consolidation of "rogue" businesses competing against the statu
Re: (Score:3)
Notice also that BarbaraHudson is lying.
This is why we dont believe it happened just because its been claimed to have happened. Not only might the people accusing him be lying, there is an army of liars literally already saying that the guy admitted it.
They want us to believe every rape accusation, but there is good reason to believe that "the general case" is a bunch of liars lying. Right here we got
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You need to get out more. He most certainly admitted it: [theguardian.com]
A prominent venture capitalist admitted to sexually harassing women in the tech industry, saying he leveraged his “position of power in exchange for sexual gain” in the latest discrimination and misconduct scandal to rock Silicon Valley.
Justin Caldbeck announced on Friday that he would be taking an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital, the firm he co-founded, following the claims of six women who accused the 40-year-old of making unwanted advances, often in the context of potential business deals.
The power dynamic that exists in venture capital is despicably unfair,” he said in his statement. “The gap of influence between male venture capitalists and female entrepreneurs is frightening and I hate that my behavior played a role in perpetrating a gender-hostile environment.”
So what is "position of power for sexual gain" again? And exactly what role did he play? Seek and ye shall find.
But after the story spread in Silicon Valley, Caldbeck reversed his position and issued a direct apology to the three women named in the article and “to the greater tech ecosystem, a community that I have utterly failed”.
He also said he was “deeply ashamed” of his lack of self-awareness and would seek professional counseling:
You don't seek professional help if you've done nothing wrong.
Also notice how different this is from his original blanket denial: In the original piece, Caldbeck said:
“I strongly deny the Information’s attacks on my character. The fact is, I have always enjoyed respectful relationships with female founders, business partners, and investors.”
He denied it. Now he admits he needs to get help for it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If one of these women had been your sister or your daughter, would you have considered the situation "handled" after Caldbeck stepped down?
So what's wrong with these women sticking up for themselves? There's nothing wrong with hanging a jacket on him so that women at his next venture are duly warned. Not every matter is best handled by courts or law enforcement. If what these women a
Re: (Score:2)
If one of these women had been your sister or your daughter, would you have considered the situation "handled" after Caldbeck stepped down?
There was no real damage, it wasn't assault, just harassment. If it happened to my sister I would be proud of her for standing up for herself, and now that Caldbeck isn't likely to do it again, move on with her life.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And she gets a valuable piece of information for free there: these are people she doesn't want to do business with. And the best thing she can do is walk right out.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wondered (Score:2)
I had a co-worker get fired for
He: "Would you like to have dinner?
She: "No."
He: "Oh. Ok. Thank you."
Very respectfully delivered - by that I mean the "Thank you" wasn't sarcastic. I didn't think that was at all inappropriate but HR took a dim view of it. They were the same level, not management to a subordinate. (An HR person was in the same room when this happened, she didn't report it.)
Now, in this case, things were quite inappropriate in my view, and I only wish one of them had been like an old girl frien
Re: (Score:2)
I had a co-worker get fired for
He: "Would you like to have dinner?
She: "No."
He: "Oh. Ok. Thank you."
Very respectfully delivered - by that I mean the "Thank you" wasn't sarcastic. I didn't think that was at all inappropriate but HR took a dim view of it. They were the same level, not management to a subordinate. (An HR person was in the same room when this happened, she didn't report it.)
Betting pool is now open.
How long will it be now until merely saying hello or making any other polite acknowledgement of a lady's existence with anything but a totally emotionless inflection of the voice and totally neutral expression on the face will be considered an unwanted advance?
Re: (Score:2)
How long will it be now until merely saying hello or making any other polite acknowledgement of a lady's existence with anything but a totally emotionless inflection of the voice and totally neutral expression on the face will be considered an unwanted advance?
Already there, and it's happened up here in Canada. I'll have to dig up the article but if I remember right, it boiled down to the guy nodding to the secretary as he entered the building. It later came out he rejected her advances, but he still lost his job. But, the kicker is if you're a man and wonder into a women heavy office and they don't know you're there? Oh boy are you in for some interesting times. That's not even touching on the amount of sexual harassment from those women. The same type of
Re: (Score:2)
Linus is smart to have security with him at all times, and never be alone with women.
Indeed. He took care of both issues quite neatly by marrying a karate champion.
Re: (Score:2)
Never.
What's with the whining victimhood shit? Why are so many here crying and whining about it every time a wife beater or other total piece of shit has to do community service for what would earn him five years if he did it in a bar.
This Men's Rights crap is getting old. Your granddads would keep on telling you to stop acting like sissies every time someone asks you to treat a woman with respect.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one of most amazingly stupid things I have read all week.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a co-worker get fired for
He: "Would you like to have dinner?
She: "No."
He: "Oh. Ok. Thank you."
That sounds like a pretty tall story, either that or you're missing some crucial details.
Been there ... (Score:2)
... from TFA:
On the latter point you only have to look at recent goings on at a company like Uber [and this] [youtube.com] to understand where such concerns are coming from.
it's like high school kids (Score:2)
Watching the Silicon Valley startup scene is like watching a bunch of immature, wealthy high school kids: incapable of dealing with their sexuality, incapable of relating to each other professionally or personally, throwing temper tantrums, and running to mommy and daddy when things don't go the way they want to.
I guess the saving grace is that, at this rate, they aren't going to reproduce much.
Most Creeps don't know they are creeps (Score:2)
... unwanted advances? (Score:3, Insightful)
Advances are made in order to know whether the other party is available and willing to
Maybe you meant "unexpected", "unsolicited" or "unpleasant".
But not "unwanted"!
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is at a social event like a party, and they make non-verbal contact (e.g. smiling at you), your advances are clearly not unwanted. Personally though I prefer to get to know people first and sound them out that way, I'm not big on just approaching strangers.
Some guys seem to think that it's okay to just make advances in every woman in any situation... Like this guy who apparently doesn't see an issue with hitting on women who are asking him for money in a business setting.
Re:..and the march of SocJus continues (Score:4, Insightful)
If there's something to this, then they should report this to the cops instead of broadcasting massive smear campaigns.
Behavior can be very inappropriate without being illegal. Context matters. My wife has send me explicit text messages late at night. That doesn't mean it is appropriate for me to do the same to a female subordinate. In neither case is it illegal, nor should it be.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's something to this, then they should report this to the cops instead of broadcasting massive smear campaigns.
Behavior can be very inappropriate without being illegal. Context matters. My wife has send me explicit text messages late at night. That doesn't mean it is appropriate for me to do the same to a female subordinate. In neither case is it illegal, nor should it be.
Actually, it is illegal to do so to a subordinate. It's called abusing a position of authority. Courts award money for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering today's politics, all men are considered de-facto guilty until proven innocent. I don't know if caldbeck truly stepped out of line, but the current situation reenforces the need for evidence based justice instead of the (social) media witchhunts we have now. I hope your wife doesn't ever get mad enough to use those messages against you in divorce court as evidence of 'unwanted advances.' Marriage offers no more immunity to this than any other context. Thanks to pervasive logging of communicatio
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't know if he stepped out of line? Did you even read the summary, much less follow the links? He apologized in a way that strongly hints that the allegations were true.
Such as these sentences from his statement, "I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. ... The gap of influence between male venture capitalists and female entrepreneurs is frightening and I hate that my behavior played a role in perpetrating a gender-hostile environment. It is
Re:..and the march of SocJus continues (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't know if he stepped out of line? Did you even read the summary, much less follow the links? He apologized in a way that strongly hints that the allegations were true.
There is a pretty good chance that he did what they accused him of doing.
But have men not learned? Don't look, don't touch, and for gawd's sake, don't socialize. A few beers, and you might be feeling warm and fuzzy, but remember, if she's had a few as well, she can't give legal consent, and if she isn't interested in you, any romantic overtures you make can be legal sexual assault.
It does seem bizarre, but it is where we are at.
Re:..and the march of SocJus continues (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not bizarre. It's the work place, not a pick up bar. If someone doesn't like your advances at a pick up bar then they can go somewhere else. But at work they're stuck, it is difficult to leave and get a different job.
If something does pick up at work and some romance blooms, it's because of mutual attraction and both people sending off signals. I think a lot of guys don't read the signals correctly, they see a woman talking to them and they assume there's a chance because no one ever talks to them outside of work.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not bizarre. It's the work place, not a pick up bar.
Remember some/many of those situations in this instance were also social, so given the cold ware between the sexes here, and my admonition here that men simply avoid any unnecessary interactions with women in the workplace, we're not so far apart.
That I think it is bizarre is my opinion. In what was a more normal world before it was "fixed", normal men and women in a work environment might engage in flirty talk with no intention of engaging in sex. The creeps? Oh yeah, they were there, and all of the lad
Re: ..and the march of SocJus continues (Score:3)
It's even worse with the new generation; they think people coming to talk to them in real life is crazy, and that they should use Tinder instead.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But "unwanted advances" is such a weasel term. There is nothing wrong with making an advance; hell, it's necessary for the survival of the race. Every relationship I've ever been in has been started with an advance on my part. Unwanted? How can you tell until afterward? That's the whole POINT.
Of course, persistent advances after the target has made it clear that she isn't interested is unprofessional, and can even be illegal. Depends on the facts of the case, which aren't known yet.
Re: ..and the march of SocJus continues (Score:2)
That's an arbitrary and very limiting restriction.
Most people -- especially successful ones -- don't have many social interactions that isn't work-related in some way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If there's something to this, then they should report this to the cops instead of broadcasting massive smear campaigns. Oh right, filing false reports is illegal so they resort to this instead.
Feminists just don't want women to have to be held accountable for the truth. So much for equality.
He's since admitted to it, apologized, and stepped down. So it wasn't a smear campaign. Looks more like it's men who don't want women to hold them accountable.
Re: ..and the march of SocJus continues (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean he was pressurized to step down due to the smear campaigns?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy has admitted it, there are multiple people making similar accusations and they are willing to publicly stand by them. I suspect that even if the guy was convicted of an actual crime or lost a lawsuit, you would just assume that the system is rigged against men and he is probably innocent.
In other words, if the accusation comes from a women, you simply refuse to believe it. We have a word for that kind of attitude. I wonder if you know what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked with women, some as my superior, some as subordinates, virtually my entire working life, and I've never been accused of making unwanted advances, because I haven't.
Neither have I. On the other hand, I have had a few ladies making "unwanted" advances toward me.
But somewhere in there is a difference. I just said - "no thanks", we laughed about it, and that was it.
For the reverse, it is a crime, unless she likes the idea. So it's like that guy who went to live with the Grizzly bears. Ended up being lunch one day.
I view coworkers, superiors, equals or subordinates, as off limits, and all the women I have worked with have had the same policy. There are plenty of people outside of work if you're looking for love or one night stands, so why piss in your swimming pool by hitting on women at work?
While I share your avoidance technique - and that is what it is - even where I worked, they recognized that many professional people don't have much of a
Re: (Score:2)
These were female entrepreneurs in the SF Bay Area seeking VC funding. They are mostly Asian.
Disclaimer: I am married to a female entrepreneur in the SF Bay Area. She has never sought VC funding, but she is Asian.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or more likely their unfamiliarity with American culture us why they mistook his pleasanteries for unwanted advances. That's why foreigners should stay on the other side of the wall.
Among the allegations made to The Information are that Caldbeck sent explicit text messages to women; that Caldbeck sent messages in the middle of the night suggesting meeting up; that Caldbeck suggested going to a hotel bedroom during a meeting; that Caldbeck made a proposition about having an open relationship; and that Caldbeck grabbed a woman’s thigh under the table of a bar during a meeting.
Yep. Just pleasantries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has said he did anything criminal, so stop with the red herrings. What he did was highly inappropriate. The sort of stuff that gets people fired. The sort of stuff people get divorced over. You know, real world consequences.
Re: I'm Guessing He Likes Asian Women? (Score:5, Funny)
You may have a point.... in other less advanced cultures, the leader of the country may not condone grabbing women by the pussy.
Re: (Score:3)
Citations needed, thanks. Especially about Trump being racist, I dare you to find it.
Ask the judges who have ruled that his ban on Muslims discriminated by race.. Ask the judge he accused of being biased because he was a Mexican. Ask the justice department, which twice took his company to court for racial discrimination - Trump countersued for slander, then entered into a consent not to do it again - and did it again. here's a quote from the first hit from "donald trump racist" [huffingtonpost.ca]
In May, Trump implied that Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over a class action suit against the for-profit Trump University, could not fairly hear the case because of his Mexican heritage.
“He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.”
Curiel, it should be noted, is an American citizen who was born in Indiana. As a prosecutor in the late 1990s, he went after Mexican drug cartels, making him a target for assassination by a Tijuana drug lord.
Even members of Trump’s own party slammed the racist remarks.
“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, though he clarified that he still endorsed Trump
The comments against Curiel didn’t sit well with the American public either. According to a YouGov poll released in June, 51 percent of those surveyed agreed that Trump’s comments were not only wrong, but also racist. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said Trump was wrong to complain against the judge, while just 20 percent said he was right to do so.
Racist, sexist bigot. That's Donald Trump.
Re:Anonymous accusers ? Next joke ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The way to abuse this phenomenon is obvious to anyone with half a strategic brain. Those of us who see this need to band together at all costs, setting all differences aside, and withdraw from the sectors of society that are swayed by this insanity, forming enclaves to shield ourselves from any liability for not keeping our trouser snakes in our trousers during working hours and our families from finding out about it.
TFTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with experience of Asian cultures would know to take their accusations with a very large bag of salt.
Anyone with experience of Asian cultures would recognise your prejudice from about 10,000 li away.
Re:Hitting on a girl == Rape* (Score:5, Informative)
We're not talking about rape. Nobody's accused him of that.
What he's accused of is making advances towards women over whom he exercised some form of power. If you don't understand why that's wrong, then you're part of the problem.
Given the fact he's already resigned his position and published a not-quite-apology/not-quite-admission, it would seem that *the allegations that were actually made* have some basis in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call a man who abuses his power?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Senator? Mr President? Your Honor? I give up, can I have a hint?
Re: (Score:2)
It is one thing to wield power, it is another thing to wield it artfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, Silicon Valley is libertarian central. You're thinking of Berkeley.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? He freely admits that he did wrong, and deserved the resulting unhappy consequences. He goes on to counsel the reader not to follow in his footsteps.
How likely are further attempts at analysis to provide any additional information or insight?
Re: (Score:2)
3 comments, all critical of the women for complaining.
Those sounds mostly like anons but you are right that there are some men on slashdot that seem to be uncomfortable with the prospect of working side-by-side with women. I condemn them and their old world view.
whether it's about pay,
muh wage gap? [youtube.com]
sexual harassment, discrimination in its many forms
It's true that the world is far from perfect but I try to work every day to improve it when and where I can. However, the reality is that the business world is structured in a way that is most beneficial to the company rather than the employees of the company itself. This is the natur
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you will find that that isn't true any more. Today (and perhaps always) the business world is structured in a way that is most beneficial to the CEOs of large companies rather than any other group.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
3 comments, all critical of the women for complaining.
Those sounds mostly like anons but you are right that there are some men on slashdot that seem to be uncomfortable with the prospect of working side-by-side with women. I condemn them and their old world view.
And you know why? Because increasingly, if I meet a jerkass man in my workplace then there's so much he can do, AND I can fight back, but if I meet a jerkass woman in a workplace then all she has to do is wrongly accuse me of sexual harassment, and presumption of innocence goes right out of the window, as does any need to provide any actual evidence, even if I avoid being thrown right into jail I'll be fired and unhireable. And possibly lynched by an angry SJW mob if she generates enough attention. Just for
Re: (Score:2)
3 comments, all critical of the women for complaining.
The first 2 comment I read were both from you, and both contained a fucking lie.
You fucking scumbag. Serious-fucking-ly. Someone is accused of a crime, and you come here and instead of trying to figure out what the truth is.... you start spreading lies about the person. Fuck off.
You arent even close to a good person, and thats putting you in the best light I can. In actuality you are a very bad person, you are harmful to functional society. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
3 comments, all critical of the women for complaining.
The first 2 comment I read were both from you, and both contained a fucking lie.
I don't post anonymously. I don't even hide behind a nym - my birth certificate says Barbara Jane Hudson. You can't say the same.
You fucking scumbag. Serious-fucking-ly. Someone is accused of a crime, and you come here and instead of trying to figure out what the truth is.... you start spreading lies about the person. Fuck off.
You fail reading comprehension. The women did NOT accuse him of a crime. You also might want to read the updated story.
You arent (sic) even close to a good person, and thats putting you in the best light I can. In actuality you are a very bad person, you are harmful to functional society. Fuck off.
The other volunteers at the food bank where I help out would probably strongly disagree with you. So would the 240 families that depended on our work last week. So would all the flood victims who've come in since the beginning of May (we had over 5,000 homes ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's it? That's the very best you can do? At least back it up with some made-up facts ... bible quotes ... misquoted stats ... you know, like all the other (almost exclusively male) transphobes do.
Must really piss you off that women accept me as one of their own. They would see your comments as symptomatic of the misogyny that pervades society ... same as both this article and the comments slagging women for complaining. Well, at least you're somewhat on topic.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly what a troll would say.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even present in the list of possible causes given in the Wikipedia article on the subject. Just sayin'.
Re:Expected slashdot post-2000 response (Score:4, Insightful)
I see you're doing the classic project. These feminist-themed topics are always very predictable like a broken AI. Was the a man involved? He was bad and wrong.
This topic really is playing out like a broken record and you're part of it.
1. Woman accuses someone of something.
2. Peanut gallery: lies! witch hunt! Why can't I hit on my co workers! I might get fired! Why are women so awful! It's not true! The poor guy was just being nice! It's all lies!
3. Guy admits it.
4. It's all lies! etc etc.
There is a strong contingent here that will never believe accounts of harassment of women no matter how strong the evidence. That same contingent will also bang on about how there is no sexism in IT. I guess that makes sense: if you refuse to believe any evidence of it, then to your eye there is none.
This is kind of annoying to everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Women chose professions based on social status,
That isn't generally true of either sex, but thanks for the generalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who (Score:5, Insightful)
Smear campaign? How can it be a smear campaign when he's since copped to it all and apologized? The only people being smeared here are the women. Read the comments - it's amazing (but not surprising) how many comments are attacking the women for (1) complaining in the first place, (2) assuming that it's probably not true so there must be other motives, (3) blame the women for "misunderstanding", (4) "it's not complaint-worthy".
And yet you all claim there's no discrimination based on sex (or at least no "undeserved" discrimination, or no "serious enough" discrimination).
Here, let me put it in language you can understand. Lacking self-awareness you are. Into the mirror look you must. Regret this one day you will.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you actually read his statement carefully, he has not admitted anything and hasn't apologized for any wrongdoing.
Oh, there is, just not the kind you believe.
Re:who (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I believe that Caldbeck and Kalanick acted like jerks because I believe men and women should not have sex outside of marriage
I'm always fascinated by the general unwillingness of most people to generalise. This kind of puritanical busybody attitude of poking one's nose into other's business is precisely what leads people to be homophobic too. And yet here you are being guilty of precisely the same thing.
Being married doesn't make people behave: any cursory glance at history will tell you that marriage didn't stop affairs in the slightest, nor did the societal stigma against sex outside of marriage stop it happening.
Likewise, not being married does not make one unfaithful.
On the other hand, from a conservative point of view, asking people out for coffee or dinner is fine because there are no expectations of sex associated with such invitations.
So why is it always the "happily" married conservatives who get caught with a rent boy in an airport bathrooms then? It's quite astonishing you seem to believe that conservatives are less likely to have affairs.
But no, there is no first order set of rules for "X" is always OK or "X" is always not OK. Context is the important thing. If you can't understand that, then I suggest you never proposition anyone until you can figure out why context is important and how to judge it, because if you can't judge that, you'll find yourself in whole heaps of trouble and not even know why.
Of course, men and women do engage in premarital sex, but it's simply not something that conservatives are concerned with protecting or analyzing, and for either men or women the remedy is simple: you decline.
Well that's why conservatives are stupid. If you refuse to analyse something then it's impossible to make reasoned decisions about it.
The progressive view, on the other hand, is evidently that men and women can have sex pretty much whenever both sides agree to it and that this is something that society needs to be concerned with protecting.
If you mean that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like in the privacy of their homes and that the government shouldn't poke it's nose in, then yes, that is what we think. Big brother has no place in my bedroom, thankyou very much!
Heck, society is even subsidizing it by paying for abortions, child services, and STD treatments.
None of those things ever happened before liberals existed. True story!
Obviously, progressives also have no problem with people in authority propositioning subordinates for sex
aaaaand you're back to the "making shit up" part of the argument.
Yet, under some ill-defined set of circumstances,
It's the context that makes it. The thing is in the real world with real humans context is important. Take for example punching someone in the face. If it's a copper, you'd get shot, or arrested or something. In a boxing match, you'd get points for it. See? Context makes the difference.
Context does not mean "ill defined", it means that it's not defined by excessively simplistic rules.
but on what principled basis do you object to what Caldbeck and Kalanick did?
It seems to be no different from what a lot of other progressives have done without being called "jerks" by you.
Abuse of position of power in Caldbeck's case.
You are criticizing me for not publicly posting comments on slashdot admonishing Bill Clinton fully years before I even knew slashdot existed and got myself an account. So, yes, I made no public comments during Bill Clinton's time in office.
Re: (Score:3)
Working on a Saturday, but here goes...
1) unless witnesses come forward, there was no one else there except the guy and the lady.
2) at that point, we're stuck EXCEPT for...
3) The woman says she feels the advances were inappropriate
4) the guy says he feels they might have been, but at first clearly denied the whole thing (typical, people act defensive when acccused)
so, we're stuck. There is no way to go back and measure feels with current technology. There's no evidence, and this is where the system breaks d
Re:So what (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't abuse his position as employer because he's not their employer.
Way to miss the point.
The women were all in contact with the VC in a professional capacity. Some as founders hoping to secure funding from his fund for their businesses.
"Employer-employee" is not the only sort of unequal-power relationship to be found in a "work" or "business" setting.
And if he doesn't want women complaining about his poor conduct in a business setting, perhaps he shouldn't conduct himself thus in a business setting.
Re: (Score:2)
NONE of them have accused him of abusing his VC relationship (the "unequal power relationship") to demand sex with them, they're accusing him of simply making unwanted passes.
This, too, misses the point, which is: The fact that he made the passes at all, in that setting, was not "fine but socially awkward", it was an abuse of his position.
Re: (Score:2)
"it was an abuse of his position"
You don't get to define that.
The law defines that. Outside of the law, there are employee behavior rules that define that.
It is really very simple. His unprofessional conduct is an abuse of his employer's trust, implicitly dangling other people's money (the VC fund monies) in front of women as a means to manipulate them into bed with him. Caldbeck did not resign because he cared about being badmouthed by a bunch of women. He resigned because the writing was on the wall that "too much truth" would soon fall into the lap of his boss, and Binary Capital would conclude he was an unnecessary hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
It is really very simple.
Yes, but how come you made it so complicated?
His unprofessional conduct...
Whats the simple definition of that? Oh thats right... its simply whatever you've decided is unprofessional.
...is an abuse of his employer's trust
implicitly dangling other people's money (the VC fund monies) in front of women as a means to manipulate them into bed with him.
Oh yes... except none of this happened. There was no sex. Not a single person is claiming that any sex happened. He didnt manipulate anyone... but here you are.. "simply" lying and saying that he did.
Caldbeck did not resign because he cared about being badmouthed by a bunch of women. He resigned because the writing was on the wall that "too much truth" would soon fall into the lap of his boss
Ah yes the "simple" thing of "too much truth" where you've decided that a crime that you have no evidence for and nobody else is claiming to have happened
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the point. He abused his position by using it to try and coerce women into bed with him. Too cheap to spend his own money on hookers and crack like other Silly Valley burn-outs.
Also, what's with all you trolls saying he didn't commit a crime, as if somehow that makes this okay? None of them accused him of committing a crime. Though I'm pretty sure his daughters and wife may have some pretty strong opinions about him telling women he has an "open marriage."
Something doesn't have to be criminal
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about, "Don't go looking for honey where you get your money"?
Re: (Score:2)
If you really need to work in an environment where there are no dating prospects to feel comfortable, it is a safe bet the problem is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, you can't read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you think men can't be trusted to stop thinking with their dicks. "I couldn't help myself. She shouldn't have dressed the way she did."
Indeed, men who let their little head override their big head shouldn't be working with women. This explains the self-organizing emergent culture that has made tech evolve into such a toxic place for women.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that's not sufficient, because if your unmarried, sex-crazed 30-something CEO hits on your feminist 20-something radical, your job is still at risk.
Except that doesn't generally happen. Uber is still going. TFA's venture firm is still going. You seem awfully concerned about people doing wildly inappropriate things getting fired, because you seem to think it might get you fired. You're pretty much admitting to inappropriate behaviour there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm simply concerned about lying feminists, White knights, and a culture of victimhood. You know, the kind of unprofessional mindset you display.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem, and an extremist evangelical Christian woman who believes a man should be the head of a family and her man should be obeyed at all times is going to be just as pissed off at such sleazebags as any feminist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, feminists have their very own ways of using sex for advancement and money. Fowler and her boss are two sides of the same coin.
Re:"Unwanted advances" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a slightly nicer way of saying "Extreme reluctance to take 'No' for an answer" or "Inability to distinguish between an office and a singles bar".
Re: (Score:3)
There's also highly inappropriate and shocking unwanted advances. Ie, you go visit your doctor, tell him your symptoms, then get propositioned. Seriously messed up for sure. Compare to this case, it's go see the VC guy with all the money, present your business case, ask for the money, get propositioned by the guy who can make or break your business plans. Also messed up? I would think so.
Re: (Score:2)
What's vague about, "He put his hand on my leg"?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but IMNSHO this is very simply something that, if you're at all ethical, or at least have the sense that God granted to a goose, *you don't do in a business setting*.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but IMNSHO this is very simply something that, if you're at all ethical, or at least have the sense that God granted to a goose, *you don't do in a business setting*.
You are claiming that this stance of yours is old fashioned... in effect pretending that it has as much credibility as something old fashioned.
In the real world, both old and new, touching someones leg is neither a crime nor a sexual advance. It is only in social justice world that it is tantamount to grabbing someone by the pussy. In the real world, touching is used for many purposes. To get someone attention, to reassure them, to guide them out of danger, and yes even to flirt. Sometimes you even touch
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you know it is unwanted until you try? And that advance could be a simple, "Care to go grab a quick lunch?" or "Can I get you a cup of coffee while I am out, since I am headed to the break room anyway?"
If she says no, then suddenly that can be considered an unwanted advance. Sometimes I think that the WOPR had it right...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you know it is unwanted until you try?
If you really really don't know the answer, then you're best off not doing it until you figure it out. It is all entirely about context, so there are no context free rules to follow.
And that advance could be a simple, "Care to go grab a quick lunch?" or "Can I get you a cup of coffee while I am out, since I am headed to the break room anyway?"
Usually, neither of those are making an advance. But if you, say, never offered before, made an advance, got turned d
Re: (Score:2)
We need to apply the old common sense principal espoused long ago in a science fiction novel:
"Try not to bother the other person. And if you are the other person, try not to be bothered too easily."
Certainly, don't make unwanted or offensive advances. But don't take casual conversation or an informal invitation to lunch as an automatic offense, either.
This guy seemed to go well beyond that, and that's not okay.
But what ever happened to the seemingly simple concept of mutual respect?
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why I will never work for a company that has a woman at a C level. They blame everyone else besides themselves.
Although I can hardly agree with this, if it were true, they would have Hillary as a role model.
Re: (Score:2)
We get it....
No, you really don't.
Corporate espionage strategists have found a weakness in the public mindset that they harp on whenever they get the chance.
What on earth has that got to do with espionage?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like the only people who get accused of this sort of thing publicly are very rich, straight males; CEOs and VCs.
First, the dude admitted it. Second, only white males? I'm sure that Crosby chap got accused of much worse recently.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the dude admitted it.
Did he admit that the claims of the women were true? The answer is no, he didn't.
Why are you lying? How come you and Barbara are lying about it? My guess is that you just read Barbara's comments where He lied, and are now just repeating it, because the truth isnt part of your agenda today. You agenda is your personal appearance.
Guess what... you just became uglier.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you lying? How come you and Barbara are lying about it?
your a moran
My guess is that you just read Barbara's comments where He lied,
Barbara's not a dude. The clue is in the name.
Anyway here's something for you:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06... [techcrunch.com]
Caldbeck says:
The past 24 hours have been the darkest of my life. I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. To say I'm sorry about my behavior is a categorical understatement. Still, I need to say it: