>The Times describes some founders who put up with unwanted sexual advances because they were desperate to raise money for their startups. There’s an old-fashioned word for what these ladies are doing that I shan’t repeat here.
What? I'm not sure I know what "old-fashioned word" the author is talking about...
The author then goes on to explain that men have to put up with shitty people to raise money as well.
As a man who has dealt with shitty people in an array of business situations I can say that none of my run-ins have included sexual assault.
The stories coming to light are not about "unwanted sexual advances" as much as they're about actual assault, or at the very least harassment.
The only people who benefit when we are dismissive are the abusers.
After the first time someone makes an unwanted sexual advance, you whether you are a man or a woman have the choice to walk away and NOT take their money!
From the article - "The only thing more timeless than the abuse of power is the tolerance of abuse by those who most need the money.". Many people want the funding bad enough to keep interacting with unpleasant people and tolerate the abuse and hence ensure it continues.... they do have at least the choice to walk away, same as men, or better yet bring it to public awareness. Yet many choose to take the money and then complain - at that point they have no right to complain, because they have actively perpetuated the cycle of abuse in exchange for money and helped the abuser grow a little more powerful.
If any founder desperate for money took money from a terrorist group, we would condemn them for colluding with the enemy, not give them sympathy for how hard it is to get funding.
You can't take the bad guys money, knowing full well what it cost you AND complain about it. That is the problem. I explained more in another comment here.
> What? I'm not sure I know what "old-fashioned word" the author is talking about...
I think she means "put up" as in "gave in", and the word is "prostitutes", because of course consenting, adult women cannot choose who they have sex with without This Author's Holy Writ.
It's just sexism on behalf of the author, it undermines her whole message (which, as far as I can tell, isn't anything in particular?) and strikes me as extremely distasteful.
>> The stories coming to light are not about "unwanted sexual advances" as much as they're about actual assault, or at the very least harassment.
The widely-discussed Dave McClure quote was definitely an unwanted romantic advance (I don't know whether I should date you or hire you). And most of the VC revelations that I've read seem to be in this vein, though I admit I've not read every detail of every article. Have there been allegations of sexual assault/rape? I'm not sure what harassment looks like in the case of VCs/entrepreneurs, since there's no employment or education context that would make the behavior illegal (for better or worse). That is to say, there's no legal definition here, and it's hard to have a productive conversation about a phrase that could be so broad as to include anything that annoys the recipient.
I'd also point out that there's a difference between an "unwanted sexual advance" and an "unwanted romantic advance". The latter are unavoidable and therefore cannot be objectionable in general. (They of course can be objectionable and even illegal in certain contexts, such as employment or education.)
The phrase "unwanted sexual advance", on the other hand, implies that the language overtly refers to (1) a sex act or (2) certain body parts. Many people find these advances objectionable/offensive if not preceded by reciprocated interest.
When discussing behavior that may be objectionable or illegal, I find it useful to use the broader term ("romantic") unless the narrower term is applicable. Otherwise it can give the impression that the interested party was acting in a manner that was at the very least crude, when in some cases this is not what occurred.
The Times describes some founders who put up with unwanted sexual advances because they were desperate to raise money for their
startups. There’s an old-fashioned word for what these ladies are doing that I shan’t repeat here.
So, women who reject these advances but don't want to object too loudly out of fear of burning bridges or being seen as a troublemaker, are being accused of prostitution. What a fascinating way to smear the victims.
The problem is many people keep objecting in general but without ever providing ANY evidence or at least asserting clearly "this person X did Y". Taking generalized accusations at simple word of mouth is lynching, its not a scalable solution for society. There will always be people who lie or bend the truth when its to their advantage, unfortunately thats the world we live in - thats why we require evidence and a judicial process in crimes.
I know it must be very difficult, but basically powerful people get away with all kinds of things including but not limited to sexual harassment because of the same fears women have against reporting them - burning bridges, fear of repercussions, they might have strong reputations and powerful friends etc etc. For most of us, the only choice is to leave that environment because of that fear. Harassment, unfortunately it can be a bigger offense, but women face the same choices as anyone else - leave or risk a fight with a powerful person... It sucks but it sucks the same way for everyone.
She ultimately makes a good point - "The only thing more timeless than the abuse of power is the tolerance of abuse by those who most need the money.". Many people want the funding bad enough to keep interacting with unpleasant people and tolerate the abuse and hence ensure it continues.... they do have at least the choice to walk away, same as men, or better yet bring it to public awareness. Yet many choose to take the money and then complain - at that point they have no right to complain, because they have actively perpetuated the cycle of abuse in exchange for money and helped the abuser grow a little more powerful.
You can't take the bad guys money, knowing full well what it cost you AND complain about it.
"Male founders have to run this emasculating gauntlet too, except that they can’t blame gender discrimination for how dirty they feel at the end of the day."
This is something I think about a lot. I am white & I am male, so my race and gender are naturally things that I don't think of very often (and I understand that constitutes a level of privilege). An exercise that I like to do sometimes is just imagine the situation I'm experiencing as if I was female, or as if I was black. If I'm in a meeting and everyone ignores what I'm saying, as a white male, there is no voice in the back of my head saying "it's because I'm female." If I don't get a job, or the interviewer was condescending, there is no voice in my head saying "it's because I'm black." So I entertain these ideas every once in a while, and it's actually amazing how many misfortunes I can quickly associate to being black or being female, that had I actually been black or female I would have ABSOLUTELY attributed to those features.
What makes this interesting is that my point isn't to say that a female or person of color won't actually have a different experience, and face real instances of racism and sexism...because they absolutely will. The thing that I DO find interesting is that they basically have no "control" experience by which to measure their victimhood. Once you've taken on the role of a victim, any number of injustices that are just part of human nature can be attributed to whatever you perceive as the source. The end result is a major overestimation of remaining institutional injustices, in my opinion, and the constant reinforcement of this victimhood status is largely responsible for continuing to plant this voice in the head of individuals that is constantly asking "am I being treated this way because I'm ________."
The inverse is obviously true in that a white male is very likely to underestimate the injustices encountered by a black person or a female, but I find this to be much less interesting. The reason being that no person is very aware of the injustices we DON'T face, we are acutely aware of the injustices that we DO face. If a black man experiences a 15% increase in injustices vs a white man, the white man is likely underestimate the impact of those of the black man. The black man, however, can rightfully attribute those extra 15% to the fact that he his black, but there is no clear differentiator between those that were truly racial in nature vs those that would have been encountered regardless of race.
> Once you've taken on the role of a victim, any number of injustices that are just part of human nature can be attributed to whatever you perceive as the source.
Why do you think this is happening? When a woman is ignored in a meeting, she doesn't think "it's because I'm a woman". She thinks "every single day people make jokes about me sleeping my way to the top, they try to hit on me while I'm doing my job, they criticize my outfit even though they've worn the same suit every day for five years straight, they refuse to meet with me alone, why would this meeting be any different?"
Next time something bad happens to you, don't just imagine being female or black in that moment. Imagine if you've been female or black for your whole life, and have direct daily evidence of people not respecting you.
Many times I have read internet complaints about how sexist and horrible some conference is, and thought, "wait a minute, I have had this exact experience several times -- and I am a white male."
> The inverse is obviously true in that a white male is very likely to underestimate the injustices encountered by a black person or a female, but I find this to be much less interesting
I'm not sure I followed you reasoning for why this situation was less interesting.
I follow that people will tend to be blind of injustices they do not face, and will be aware of injustices that they _do_ face. I don't see the connection to why that makes the lack of perspective of the experience of others' less interesting.
I personally find the opposite. The more I learn how significantly different people's experiences are the _more_ interesting I find hearing these other perspectives.
Was you ignored once in a while or systematically no matter how you change the way you communicate with group? That makes difference. I was in situation when I was treated differently and in situations when I was treated equally. It is night and day difference.
If I am treated equally and they are dicks, they are dicks against new dudes around too.
That is how I tell them apart - there are enough groups who treat me equally to see difference agains those who do not.
The other difference is that I was flat out told that women can't code or "guys are too good in it" and it was not meant as a joke - in one case it was meant to inspire me to change major. I know it is not just in my head.
I agree with everything you say, but sadly the disadvantaged person have a tough decision to make:
A, ignore the injustices, this allows the person to function better without the victimhood mentality, and generally blend in with the mainstream better.
B, recognize the injustices and try to raise awareness and fight against them, it's easy to fall into victim mentality because of reason you mentioned, and also counter-productive for the purpose of blending into the mainstream.
So generally speaking, option a is easier, with a caveat, that if everyone chooses the easy route, then who will fight against those injustices?
I'm a white male too, and have thought about this too.
So I asked some women what their experience was, explaining that I was truly interested in understanding, and listened to them.
It's different. Soooo different.
You and I might get ignored, or disrespected, or treated badly, this is true, and part of normal human behaviour as you say. And if this constituted 85% of the picture, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I was going to list a bunch of treatments that we don't get because we're white males. But I decided not to. Go find out for yourself. Ask some female friends who you respect about their experiences. Make sure to make it clear to them that you're trying to understand, because most women will actually minimise their grievances so that they're not seen as whinging or complaining.
Remember, we don't have a "control" either. We don't get to experience our reality and then another person's reality. It's easy to dismiss. But in order to fix it, the first step is to understand it. And the only way we're going to do that is by listening, really listening, to the other's perspective and experiences.
People looking for investments in their businesses are not panhandlers. They are not begging. They do not deserve to have any abuse tossed their way. They are people working in a business environment trying to create a mutually-beneficial arrangement. They are professionals, as are their investors.
> The Times describes some founders who put up with unwanted sexual advances because they were desperate to raise money for their startups. There’s an old-fashioned word for what these ladies are doing that I shan’t repeat here.
This is wildly offensive and just stupid beyond all belief. A woman who has a start-up she's trying to raise money for is a WHORE if she puts up with unwanted sexual advances from investors? Or is Elaine Ou saying that a woman who has a start-up is a WHORE because women who go "begging" for money deserve to be treated like sex objects?
> A woman who has a start-up she's trying to raise money for is a WHORE if she puts up with unwanted sexual advances from investors?
She is saying that if you put up with this kind of behavior rather than cutting it off, you are part of the problem.
To be fair, this goes for men, too. I have had the "joy" of turning down funding because the person involved was such a jackass. Fortunately, he wasn't offering a huge sum of money.
Add another zero, and my partner and I would probably have been in a major argument. And two zeros and I probably would have swallowed my pride. I acknowledge that I can be bought--I just hope my price is high enough to make it worth it.
I really don't envy women in this environment. Lots of people running VC funds really like to throw the power imbalance around even towards men. Adding sexual dynamics to the mix has to be ferociously toxic--think about the abuse of Hooter's waitresses and then dial the restraint to zero.
It's nice that she decides to call women who didn't report unwanted sexual advances "prostitutes" without having the guts to actually say that for the record.
This post is pure victim blaming that adds nothing of substance to the conversation ("The Times describes some founders who put up with unwanted sexual advances"... clearly the people who have come forward precisely DO NOT put up with the unwanted sexual advances?!?!?!?!). The author should perhaps realize that they are privileged to have never experienced the distresses many have reported, instead of smugly dismissing it with an argument that amounts to "well I'm old and I see no problems here" (EDIT: never mind, turns out the author was born in 1982, not worked in the valley since 1982, which makes her argument just "I'm a random person and I see no problems here", even less forgivable).
I have a very hard time understanding what kind of mind, when given the choice to support rich powerful people who abuse their power or women who just would like to get their work done and build a career in a professional environment, chooses to believe and stick by the former.
Given that this is on the front page already I expect my post to be heavily disagreed with, but at least people who have experienced discrimination/harassment can see that not all of the HN users think it's their fault.
She says "it's not that bad" and then goes on to explain that abusive behavior happens because of the capital raising dynamics.
So in fact the abuse is happening...
It's understandable for a woman to come out and say "look it's not that bad", because it's true that in a majority of cases, women in tech are treated fine and the media shouldn't make the tech environment look like it's a giant college dorm.
But, at the same time, it is true that some pockets of college dorm culture still exist. And because the tech culture is so homogenous (geeky male college grads) and isolated, extreme and abusive behavior towards those outside the culture arise more easily.
Media attention is necessary so that the people who evolve in that culture day in day out can have a reality check.
Random Non sequitur: I love Black Mirror but for the most part it concentrates on possible negative consequences of future tech. Episode S01E03 in particular concentrated on the possible negative consequences of having always on eye based video cameras that record your life 24/7 (or at least while your eyes are open). That reality doesn't seem too far away. 5 to 15 years? Maybe not implanted eyes by then but some fashionable version of Snapchat Spectacles.
If that world ever comes to pass what would be the positive consequences if any. Would it solve most sexual harassment issues since in that world most sexual harassment would be recorded? How often would it be clear sexual harassment vs individual interpretation?
While on the topic of individual interpretation you might find this season of The Heart interesting.
Not about painting people who've made mistakes with a brush. Not about placing blame.
If a friend / family member of yours, a woman you cared about, was in a situation where she was being harassed by someone with a cheque in his hand, what would you want her to do?
Ah yes, I remember this person. She started an unlicensed Bitcoin-based derivatives exchange where the public could bet on the success of startups, and was fined and shut down by the SEC (not before posting an ill-advised rant first: https://archive.is/DOVJZ).
Edit: I appreciate the questions of the relevance of this fact. My perspective was that Ms. Ou appears to consider Silicon Valley / the startup world a place where the usual rules do not, or perhaps should not apply. I should have been more explicit about this in my original post.
You act as though the dynamics of internet flamewars weren't painfully well-known and obvious. If you want "civilized and intelligent discourse", posting like this is certainly not the way to obtain it.
How did this make front page of HN? This adds literally nothing to the discussion apart from rehashing arguments that were old hat in 2008, by an author who openly admits they are part of the privileged group largely responsible for the problem, complete with an oh so classy “well I can’t SAY it, but you know what I mean” as if sideways implying garbage opinions is somehow morally superior to having garbage opinions.
Maybe people are getting sick and tired of this constant bashing of "privileged" men (especially white men) and this is welcomed opinion.
It's good that bad people are exposed, but when the opinion starts to shift more and more towards grouping all "privileged" people in same group (like you are doing in this very post) it is only creating a bigger problem by making gender and race the primary thing that defines a person instead of their character.
[+] [-] 49531|8 years ago|reply
What? I'm not sure I know what "old-fashioned word" the author is talking about...
The author then goes on to explain that men have to put up with shitty people to raise money as well.
As a man who has dealt with shitty people in an array of business situations I can say that none of my run-ins have included sexual assault.
The stories coming to light are not about "unwanted sexual advances" as much as they're about actual assault, or at the very least harassment.
The only people who benefit when we are dismissive are the abusers.
[+] [-] zaptheimpaler|8 years ago|reply
From the article - "The only thing more timeless than the abuse of power is the tolerance of abuse by those who most need the money.". Many people want the funding bad enough to keep interacting with unpleasant people and tolerate the abuse and hence ensure it continues.... they do have at least the choice to walk away, same as men, or better yet bring it to public awareness. Yet many choose to take the money and then complain - at that point they have no right to complain, because they have actively perpetuated the cycle of abuse in exchange for money and helped the abuser grow a little more powerful.
If any founder desperate for money took money from a terrorist group, we would condemn them for colluding with the enemy, not give them sympathy for how hard it is to get funding.
You can't take the bad guys money, knowing full well what it cost you AND complain about it. That is the problem. I explained more in another comment here.
[+] [-] StavrosK|8 years ago|reply
I think she means "put up" as in "gave in", and the word is "prostitutes", because of course consenting, adult women cannot choose who they have sex with without This Author's Holy Writ.
It's just sexism on behalf of the author, it undermines her whole message (which, as far as I can tell, isn't anything in particular?) and strikes me as extremely distasteful.
[+] [-] throw33s90a|8 years ago|reply
The widely-discussed Dave McClure quote was definitely an unwanted romantic advance (I don't know whether I should date you or hire you). And most of the VC revelations that I've read seem to be in this vein, though I admit I've not read every detail of every article. Have there been allegations of sexual assault/rape? I'm not sure what harassment looks like in the case of VCs/entrepreneurs, since there's no employment or education context that would make the behavior illegal (for better or worse). That is to say, there's no legal definition here, and it's hard to have a productive conversation about a phrase that could be so broad as to include anything that annoys the recipient.
I'd also point out that there's a difference between an "unwanted sexual advance" and an "unwanted romantic advance". The latter are unavoidable and therefore cannot be objectionable in general. (They of course can be objectionable and even illegal in certain contexts, such as employment or education.)
The phrase "unwanted sexual advance", on the other hand, implies that the language overtly refers to (1) a sex act or (2) certain body parts. Many people find these advances objectionable/offensive if not preceded by reciprocated interest.
When discussing behavior that may be objectionable or illegal, I find it useful to use the broader term ("romantic") unless the narrower term is applicable. Otherwise it can give the impression that the interested party was acting in a manner that was at the very least crude, when in some cases this is not what occurred.
[+] [-] nextlevelwizard|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tashi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaptheimpaler|8 years ago|reply
I know it must be very difficult, but basically powerful people get away with all kinds of things including but not limited to sexual harassment because of the same fears women have against reporting them - burning bridges, fear of repercussions, they might have strong reputations and powerful friends etc etc. For most of us, the only choice is to leave that environment because of that fear. Harassment, unfortunately it can be a bigger offense, but women face the same choices as anyone else - leave or risk a fight with a powerful person... It sucks but it sucks the same way for everyone.
She ultimately makes a good point - "The only thing more timeless than the abuse of power is the tolerance of abuse by those who most need the money.". Many people want the funding bad enough to keep interacting with unpleasant people and tolerate the abuse and hence ensure it continues.... they do have at least the choice to walk away, same as men, or better yet bring it to public awareness. Yet many choose to take the money and then complain - at that point they have no right to complain, because they have actively perpetuated the cycle of abuse in exchange for money and helped the abuser grow a little more powerful.
You can't take the bad guys money, knowing full well what it cost you AND complain about it.
[+] [-] beachy|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sauronlord|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ralusek|8 years ago|reply
This is something I think about a lot. I am white & I am male, so my race and gender are naturally things that I don't think of very often (and I understand that constitutes a level of privilege). An exercise that I like to do sometimes is just imagine the situation I'm experiencing as if I was female, or as if I was black. If I'm in a meeting and everyone ignores what I'm saying, as a white male, there is no voice in the back of my head saying "it's because I'm female." If I don't get a job, or the interviewer was condescending, there is no voice in my head saying "it's because I'm black." So I entertain these ideas every once in a while, and it's actually amazing how many misfortunes I can quickly associate to being black or being female, that had I actually been black or female I would have ABSOLUTELY attributed to those features.
What makes this interesting is that my point isn't to say that a female or person of color won't actually have a different experience, and face real instances of racism and sexism...because they absolutely will. The thing that I DO find interesting is that they basically have no "control" experience by which to measure their victimhood. Once you've taken on the role of a victim, any number of injustices that are just part of human nature can be attributed to whatever you perceive as the source. The end result is a major overestimation of remaining institutional injustices, in my opinion, and the constant reinforcement of this victimhood status is largely responsible for continuing to plant this voice in the head of individuals that is constantly asking "am I being treated this way because I'm ________."
The inverse is obviously true in that a white male is very likely to underestimate the injustices encountered by a black person or a female, but I find this to be much less interesting. The reason being that no person is very aware of the injustices we DON'T face, we are acutely aware of the injustices that we DO face. If a black man experiences a 15% increase in injustices vs a white man, the white man is likely underestimate the impact of those of the black man. The black man, however, can rightfully attribute those extra 15% to the fact that he his black, but there is no clear differentiator between those that were truly racial in nature vs those that would have been encountered regardless of race.
[+] [-] burkaman|8 years ago|reply
Why do you think this is happening? When a woman is ignored in a meeting, she doesn't think "it's because I'm a woman". She thinks "every single day people make jokes about me sleeping my way to the top, they try to hit on me while I'm doing my job, they criticize my outfit even though they've worn the same suit every day for five years straight, they refuse to meet with me alone, why would this meeting be any different?"
Next time something bad happens to you, don't just imagine being female or black in that moment. Imagine if you've been female or black for your whole life, and have direct daily evidence of people not respecting you.
[+] [-] jblow|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ncallaway|8 years ago|reply
I'm not sure I followed you reasoning for why this situation was less interesting.
I follow that people will tend to be blind of injustices they do not face, and will be aware of injustices that they _do_ face. I don't see the connection to why that makes the lack of perspective of the experience of others' less interesting.
I personally find the opposite. The more I learn how significantly different people's experiences are the _more_ interesting I find hearing these other perspectives.
[+] [-] watwut|8 years ago|reply
If I am treated equally and they are dicks, they are dicks against new dudes around too.
That is how I tell them apart - there are enough groups who treat me equally to see difference agains those who do not.
The other difference is that I was flat out told that women can't code or "guys are too good in it" and it was not meant as a joke - in one case it was meant to inspire me to change major. I know it is not just in my head.
[+] [-] analyst74|8 years ago|reply
A, ignore the injustices, this allows the person to function better without the victimhood mentality, and generally blend in with the mainstream better.
B, recognize the injustices and try to raise awareness and fight against them, it's easy to fall into victim mentality because of reason you mentioned, and also counter-productive for the purpose of blending into the mainstream.
So generally speaking, option a is easier, with a caveat, that if everyone chooses the easy route, then who will fight against those injustices?
[+] [-] marcus_holmes|8 years ago|reply
So I asked some women what their experience was, explaining that I was truly interested in understanding, and listened to them.
It's different. Soooo different.
You and I might get ignored, or disrespected, or treated badly, this is true, and part of normal human behaviour as you say. And if this constituted 85% of the picture, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I was going to list a bunch of treatments that we don't get because we're white males. But I decided not to. Go find out for yourself. Ask some female friends who you respect about their experiences. Make sure to make it clear to them that you're trying to understand, because most women will actually minimise their grievances so that they're not seen as whinging or complaining.
Remember, we don't have a "control" either. We don't get to experience our reality and then another person's reality. It's easy to dismiss. But in order to fix it, the first step is to understand it. And the only way we're going to do that is by listening, really listening, to the other's perspective and experiences.
Good luck :) It's eye-opening, it really is.
[+] [-] d--b|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|8 years ago|reply
People looking for investments in their businesses are not panhandlers. They are not begging. They do not deserve to have any abuse tossed their way. They are people working in a business environment trying to create a mutually-beneficial arrangement. They are professionals, as are their investors.
> The Times describes some founders who put up with unwanted sexual advances because they were desperate to raise money for their startups. There’s an old-fashioned word for what these ladies are doing that I shan’t repeat here.
This is wildly offensive and just stupid beyond all belief. A woman who has a start-up she's trying to raise money for is a WHORE if she puts up with unwanted sexual advances from investors? Or is Elaine Ou saying that a woman who has a start-up is a WHORE because women who go "begging" for money deserve to be treated like sex objects?
Am I misreading that? I must be. Please help.
[+] [-] bsder|8 years ago|reply
She is saying that if you put up with this kind of behavior rather than cutting it off, you are part of the problem.
To be fair, this goes for men, too. I have had the "joy" of turning down funding because the person involved was such a jackass. Fortunately, he wasn't offering a huge sum of money.
Add another zero, and my partner and I would probably have been in a major argument. And two zeros and I probably would have swallowed my pride. I acknowledge that I can be bought--I just hope my price is high enough to make it worth it.
I really don't envy women in this environment. Lots of people running VC funds really like to throw the power imbalance around even towards men. Adding sexual dynamics to the mix has to be ferociously toxic--think about the abuse of Hooter's waitresses and then dial the restraint to zero.
[+] [-] glangdale|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|8 years ago|reply
I have a very hard time understanding what kind of mind, when given the choice to support rich powerful people who abuse their power or women who just would like to get their work done and build a career in a professional environment, chooses to believe and stick by the former.
Given that this is on the front page already I expect my post to be heavily disagreed with, but at least people who have experienced discrimination/harassment can see that not all of the HN users think it's their fault.
[+] [-] d--b|8 years ago|reply
So in fact the abuse is happening...
It's understandable for a woman to come out and say "look it's not that bad", because it's true that in a majority of cases, women in tech are treated fine and the media shouldn't make the tech environment look like it's a giant college dorm.
But, at the same time, it is true that some pockets of college dorm culture still exist. And because the tech culture is so homogenous (geeky male college grads) and isolated, extreme and abusive behavior towards those outside the culture arise more easily.
Media attention is necessary so that the people who evolve in that culture day in day out can have a reality check.
[+] [-] ryandamm|8 years ago|reply
More plainly: this is HN clickbait. Ignore, please, read on at your peril.
[+] [-] greggman|8 years ago|reply
If that world ever comes to pass what would be the positive consequences if any. Would it solve most sexual harassment issues since in that world most sexual harassment would be recorded? How often would it be clear sexual harassment vs individual interpretation?
While on the topic of individual interpretation you might find this season of The Heart interesting.
http://www.theheartradio.org/no-episodes/
[+] [-] naiveattack|8 years ago|reply
Not about painting people who've made mistakes with a brush. Not about placing blame.
If a friend / family member of yours, a woman you cared about, was in a situation where she was being harassed by someone with a cheque in his hand, what would you want her to do?
[+] [-] propter_hoc|8 years ago|reply
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9642186
Edit: I appreciate the questions of the relevance of this fact. My perspective was that Ms. Ou appears to consider Silicon Valley / the startup world a place where the usual rules do not, or perhaps should not apply. I should have been more explicit about this in my original post.
[+] [-] beefsack|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosser|8 years ago|reply
EDIT: Particularly ironic, given your username.
[+] [-] 0xbear|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sauronlord|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bsmith2020|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adam_seeliger|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] teekert|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14741492 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] FussyZeus|8 years ago|reply
Is this satire?
[+] [-] nextlevelwizard|8 years ago|reply
It's good that bad people are exposed, but when the opinion starts to shift more and more towards grouping all "privileged" people in same group (like you are doing in this very post) it is only creating a bigger problem by making gender and race the primary thing that defines a person instead of their character.
[+] [-] cbsmith|8 years ago|reply