Following these very visible and high profile falls from grace, in politics, media and entertainment, and high tech, there must be some legitimate concerns that in the near future the Billy Graham rule [1] (or lately called the Graham-Pence rule) will find more followers than before.
Many men in power will instinctually and subconsciously cut out women from their professional lives more than before, to the detriment of women's career advancement. Polls [2] suggest that this isn't a rare position even today. Mitigating this next challenge should be part of the current successful campaign that women and allies of women have been waging today, since even though to some it will be clear that basic attitudes of respect and professional distance will suffice, many others will make a fear-driven overreaction.
I know this might not be a popular opinion. But I've basically instituted a modified version of this rule for myself.
Billy Graham and Mike Pence are definitely not a fountain a good ideas, but that doesn't mean this rule is that bad, despite the nonsense place it comes from.
Whenever I need to have after work dinner/social communication with a female associate after 5:00pm, I just go out of my way to invite another woman so she won't be alone. If that is not an option I will try to make it a bigger group with men and women. I never shut the door to my office when I am with a woman. If we need to have a private conversation, we do walking meetings around the block in public areas.
This may be shutting some women out of the intense bonding that some male colleges have, but I'm not interested in friendships with men from work either, so I don't think I'm being unfair to anyone.
I also don't stand too close to women. I don't ever comment on their physical appearance even if they got a great hair cut. And I don't need to hug anyone I work with ever.
Maybe this makes me a jerk. But I feel like it keeps the relationships I care about most (those with my family) safe.
I understand the fear of men being accused of harassment and losing their career over a he said, she said. However, the stories coming out recently look nothing like a he said she said. I'm not aware of any the recent allegations being based on two professionals meeting alone for a professional discussion and the woman accusing the man of harassment. There seems to be a lot of invitations back to hotel rooms, or numerous, numerous women claiming groping and outright sexual assault. The facts on the accusations here are not public, as far as I'm aware, so I can't speak to this allegation specifically. But to imply that men need to not have normal business interactions with women to protect from this doesn't seem to match up with the facts here and sounds like FUD that does a disservice to women who deal with real harassment.
I avoid women in my professional life as much as I possible can. My work is in politics, and if I absolutely must work with a woman, I do all I can to make that interaction as open, transparent, documented, and inclusive with others as possible. You will never catch me alone in an office with a woman. I know colleagues who refuse to even interview or consider women for positions because they are afraid of anything that might be said or implied later, and becoming a liability.
I think there is always a chance that a sociopath will plot to ruin your life for no perceivable self gain. A tiny, tiny chance. I’m skeptical of the actual efficacy of such strategies, like the “Pence” rule, but the main point is that designing your whole life so as to minimize the attack surface for sociopaths is completely insane. It would be like never leaving your house so as to reduce the chance of dying in a terrorist attack. And better not meet with any men either, as men can also accuse you of groping them, amazingly enough.
In many ways it seems like the Republican campaign against “voter fraud” or similar: a solution so obviously in search of a problem, that one seems sure there must be some ulterior motive.
These guys are all pretty obviously guilty, so I don't see the need to worry. Just follow two simple rules and you'll be fine:
1. Don't sexually assault / harass anybody.
2. Maintain clear boundaries with anybody you have a position of power over - even if it seems completely consensual you just can't hook up or have a romantic relationship with them.
Who is it that 'must' be having this 'legitimate' concern? Even in the poll and wikipedia page you cited, the primary driver for the concern is sexist beliefs of a religious nature, not some response to recent high-profile accusations of misconduct.
I think we then need to cut those people out. If you're not professional enough to be able to meet with anyone one-on-one, and not do anything, then you don't deserve a position in leadership.
It is nice to see comeuppance for those who used their position to hurt others. I'm hopeful that the past few weeks lead to a new culture where victims do not fear retribution for speaking out or going to authorities, but I fear that without a concerted effort to make that happen things will go back to normal and this will just be a blip.
Its unlikely that people who are inclined to abuse their power this way will not notice. Its been a media blitz, and its astonishing how prevalent this kind of behavior has been so far. Hopefully it will at least make the abusers think twice, but more importantly, I hope it will empower the victims to speak out and not feel like its been their fault.
This is what I love about America: we have periodic, bloodless revolutions that can be initiated and carried out by anyone. The social order keeps changing without the chaos, destruction, and waste of violent upheavals or coups. Isn't this what both Marx and Mao have always wanted? What they both didn't realize was that you need a functioning democracy with freedom of speech (and the Internet) to achieve it.
Would you mind explaining this more? It's a interesting idea. What do you think causes this or allows it to happen?
Did you think of this or is it taken from somewhere?
23 years ago, Steve Jurvetson was the only VC to respond to the 150 letters I sent out while seeking capital for my first startup. At the time he had not yet made partner at DFJ (it was just Draper Fisher back then). I was really impressed by his intelligence. At the time I was delivering pizza while working my way through a physics degree, designing a fusion reactor in my spare time. He cared about real advances in technology, and he and Tim Draper gave me a chance. Without him making the decision to speak to me, my whole life and career would have been different.
I don't know anything about whether Steve was inappropriate towards women or not. I've never worked closely enough with him to know, and I haven't spoken to him in many years. But I can't help but hope that he's doing ok. I hope he either gets vindication if he's innocent, or comes to peace with his actions if he is not. The rest of you may see him now as a powerful middle-aged man, but I still remember him as the young hotshot with something to prove.
Based on what I've read, and I'm fully willing to admit it's all hearsay, Steve, while having achieved great things, has a history of abusing his power and treating founders poorly. This does not feel like bad news.
This may get downvotes, but the speed with which careers are being destroyed based on mere allegations of sexual misconduct these days is frightening. While the allegations in this case may or may not be true, it is actually possible for a woman to make a false allegation of sexual misconduct. There are myriad reasons that someone would make make such a false allegation against a powerful VC. Yet in today’s environment, even if he ultimately proves himself to be innocent through the lawsuit he claims he is going to file against his accuser, a career death sentence has already been carried out by a virtual lynch mob. That is wrong.
I’m not convinced that "career death due to fraudulent sexual misconduct allegations” is a ramptant problem in tech. Based on nearly 100% of women I’ve ever known in tech, the vast majority of sexual misconduct either goes unreported or gets reported and ignored. Maybe you have some better data about this, though. If so, do share.
And besides, I have a hard time imagining that a large VC firm would fire one of its founders on a flimsy claim. He’s obviously extremely valuable to RFJ, so you’d expect they’d have done some basic cost-benefit analysis before getting rid of him. To me, firing him sounds more like “preemptive damage control” in the face of very credible claims than it seems like “overcautious PC policing”.
The crux of the problem is how to set up a system where people feel comfortable coming forward without creating one that incentivizes false accusations. This is exacerbated by the externalities surrounding sexual misconduct: sometimes it's one word against another, sometimes the evidence isn't that strong, and many victims are so impacted by the misconduct/abuse that they may not want to relive the experience through the legal/judicial system. And as we see here, an accusation of sexual misconduct can be so damaging to the accused that they may seek financial restitution - no matter whether they did or didn't commit the crime. Finally, there is an element of ambiguity as to what constitutes sexual harassment (in some cases, definitely not all) and what does not.
I don't think there's a good solution to the problem within our existing legal framework. Probably the best short-term fix is to encourage victims to document incidences of sexual misconduct as soon they occur (including gathering e.g. biological evidence) and to report on them as soon as possible. Of course, the natural response to sexual misconduct is often to dedicate time to reconciling the fact that it happened, not to seek legal recourse, so this couldn't be perfect.
First of all, if you have been on ycombinator for any length of time, you knew this would end up top reply, not downvoted.
Secondly, will this is wrong, the main alternative seems to be years of unreported abuse. The men (and it is mostly men) have had years to take these kinds of accusations seriously, and work towards an environment where should accusations could be handled fairly. They have failed at that goal.
While I am fear a small number of people may get falsely accused, the opening of the floodgates will, I hoped be a long term good.
>Yet in today’s environment, even if he ultimately proves himself to be innocent through the lawsuit he claims he is going to file against his accuser, a career death sentence has already been carried out by a virtual lynch mob. That is wrong.
yes, if all of those circumstances are true, then it would be unfair to the accused (and should be punished accordingly).
however, it seems to me that journalists are being unusually careful about reporting these abuse allegations because of the exact pitfall you point out. some of the reports cite tens of sources (some named and some unnamed), so they're trying to play it safe when it comes to the reporting.
that's not to say that journalalists are infallible, but that they are taking precautions not to potentially destroy careers based on rumors alone.
By default I would say that when there are serious allegations we should wait until a trial has been conducted.
But there are also cases emerging of dozen of people finally speaking out about an individual, where some kind of opportunistic fabrication seems very unlikely.
In most of these rapid takedown cases, the accused doesn't contest the allegations (or only sort of does). Easy to overestimate how often this happens.
And the destruction is mutual for the most part. The moment the accusation is made, the accuser will experience some stigma too.
I was thinking this too. I do believe there are a lot of victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. However, what concerns me is that their truths are being overshadowed by those who seek to use these accusations as a way to screw over somebody they didn't like or for attention or even for money. It is quite frightening and it could happen to anyone.
>This may get downvotes, but the speed with which careers are being destroyed based on mere allegations of sexual misconduct these days is frightening.
I think that traditional avenues have failed victims. This is especially true for Hollywood which has been abusing power long before the tech industry existed (see the exploitation of Judy Garland from the Wizard of Oz)[0].
If there are any false allegations (through evidence or admission), we will need to see how the media treats that. If they don't give it the same coverage as the accused are currently getting, then that's obviously a problem with the media and society. That would clearly be bias and possibly sexist.
If all of these allegations hold true, then the media has successfully done the job where law and society could not.
> a career death sentence has already been carried out by a virtual lynch mob
Did you read the article you are commenting on?
> "... sources said that the investigation uncovered behaviors by Jurvetson that were unacceptable related to a negative tone toward women entrepreneurs."
So if the article is correct, your claim that there is nothing more than "mere allegations" so far is wrong.
It's how it always works though things are never in equilibrium. Todays environment is direct result of those in power either ignoring the problem or being part of the problem for a long time. Now as pendulum is moving in the opposite direction it will swing by the equilibrium point and move far enough in opposite direction (proportional to how far out of balance it was before).
Steve Jurvetson, at the end of this, will still be wealthy and powerful. Even if he is innocent, him losing his job is a small price to pay when balanced against the countless women who are harassed and assaulted every day.
If the allegation is false then Mr. Jurvetson could seek significant civil and in certain cases even criminal penalties. Making a serious false accusation against someone that damages their career is not something one does lightly, especially someone with significant financial resources at their disposal. If the accusation is actual rape then it would be making a false criminal charge, which is a felony.
It sounds as if lawsuits are going to be filed, which means these claims may get examined in a court of law.
For these reasons I'm inclined to think there's likely something to this. If there isn't then the accuser(s) must have either nothing to lose, a serious axe to grind, or are being paid by someone to do this. These seem unlikely.
Long time reader, tentative poster, upvote or downvote as necessary…
Back in the days of orkut.com, I do remember Jurvetson making what seemed to me like a huge effort to interact with pretty young women, especially from Estonia. I remember him having a few hundred friends on that service — more than most people there had — a list which included a very large population of pretty, young, single Estonian women.
Keep in mind that I never saw any behavior of his on orkut.com that I would deem harassment, but his social activity there did seem curious to me, considering his married, busy professional status. It was kind of similar to what I saw Marc Canter (of Macromedia fame I guess?) doing there, but again, for neither guy did I witness, or hear, of any harassment going on. it just seemed that what they were doing was merely using their professional status to flirt.
At the time, I figured that their flirting, and their collecting of young female friends, was harmless, and didn't indicate anything untoward going on. Especially since none of my female friends and acquaintances in these guys’ sights intimated to me that anything weird or unwelcome was happening. But now, I'm not so sure, considering how allegations, like the one in the featured article, are bubbling up.
I'm torn on how useful this kind of comment (or gossip?) is. On the one hand: it's context. On the other: the witch hunt Has Begun™.
God forbid I ever end up in a situation, and find people telling similar, about me. Even if completely true, this could still be irrelevant. How would I feel about my past self indulging in their consumption, as I am tempted to, right now?
How do others feel about this?
Edit: And: does it matter whether it turns out to be a false accusation, like he claims, or a real one? Because if it does (which I think it does), shouldn't we withhold these stories until the verdict is definite? But if it doesn't, then... surely, that can only mean that this comment is irrelevant?
> Jurvetson is the highest-profile venture capitalist to be forced from his job amid an industrywide evaluation of how Silicon Valley treats women.
And then later.
> The departure comes as Jurvetson was being investigated by his own firm for harassment. An entrepreneur had alleged predatory behavior was “rampant” at DFJ. The woman, Keri Kukral, did not name Jurvetson in her Facebook post.
So the "industrywide evaluation" is individual victims coming forward and reporting past abuse. That's a very charitable take that implies the industry is taking some sort of proactive action.
hkmurakami|8 years ago
Many men in power will instinctually and subconsciously cut out women from their professional lives more than before, to the detriment of women's career advancement. Polls [2] suggest that this isn't a rare position even today. Mitigating this next challenge should be part of the current successful campaign that women and allies of women have been waging today, since even though to some it will be clear that basic attitudes of respect and professional distance will suffice, many others will make a fear-driven overreaction.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham_rule
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opp...
ghostbrainalpha|8 years ago
Billy Graham and Mike Pence are definitely not a fountain a good ideas, but that doesn't mean this rule is that bad, despite the nonsense place it comes from.
Whenever I need to have after work dinner/social communication with a female associate after 5:00pm, I just go out of my way to invite another woman so she won't be alone. If that is not an option I will try to make it a bigger group with men and women. I never shut the door to my office when I am with a woman. If we need to have a private conversation, we do walking meetings around the block in public areas.
This may be shutting some women out of the intense bonding that some male colleges have, but I'm not interested in friendships with men from work either, so I don't think I'm being unfair to anyone.
I also don't stand too close to women. I don't ever comment on their physical appearance even if they got a great hair cut. And I don't need to hug anyone I work with ever.
Maybe this makes me a jerk. But I feel like it keeps the relationships I care about most (those with my family) safe.
aero142|8 years ago
Overtonwindow|8 years ago
jaredklewis|8 years ago
In many ways it seems like the Republican campaign against “voter fraud” or similar: a solution so obviously in search of a problem, that one seems sure there must be some ulterior motive.
s17n|8 years ago
1. Don't sexually assault / harass anybody.
2. Maintain clear boundaries with anybody you have a position of power over - even if it seems completely consensual you just can't hook up or have a romantic relationship with them.
pvg|8 years ago
egwynn|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
ringaroundthetx|8 years ago
Asking for a VC
s73ver_|8 years ago
jkw|8 years ago
"I am leaving DFJ to focus on personal matters, including taking legal action against those whose false statements have defamed me."
https://twitter.com/dfjsteve/status/930170825625370624
s73ver_|8 years ago
MsMowz|8 years ago
pm90|8 years ago
chaostheory|8 years ago
theha343432|8 years ago
api|8 years ago
draw_down|8 years ago
[deleted]
FiatLuxDave|8 years ago
I don't know anything about whether Steve was inappropriate towards women or not. I've never worked closely enough with him to know, and I haven't spoken to him in many years. But I can't help but hope that he's doing ok. I hope he either gets vindication if he's innocent, or comes to peace with his actions if he is not. The rest of you may see him now as a powerful middle-aged man, but I still remember him as the young hotshot with something to prove.
nhangen|8 years ago
mathattack|8 years ago
downandout|8 years ago
egwynn|8 years ago
And besides, I have a hard time imagining that a large VC firm would fire one of its founders on a flimsy claim. He’s obviously extremely valuable to RFJ, so you’d expect they’d have done some basic cost-benefit analysis before getting rid of him. To me, firing him sounds more like “preemptive damage control” in the face of very credible claims than it seems like “overcautious PC policing”.
opportune|8 years ago
I don't think there's a good solution to the problem within our existing legal framework. Probably the best short-term fix is to encourage victims to document incidences of sexual misconduct as soon they occur (including gathering e.g. biological evidence) and to report on them as soon as possible. Of course, the natural response to sexual misconduct is often to dedicate time to reconciling the fact that it happened, not to seek legal recourse, so this couldn't be perfect.
CJefferson|8 years ago
Secondly, will this is wrong, the main alternative seems to be years of unreported abuse. The men (and it is mostly men) have had years to take these kinds of accusations seriously, and work towards an environment where should accusations could be handled fairly. They have failed at that goal.
While I am fear a small number of people may get falsely accused, the opening of the floodgates will, I hoped be a long term good.
MsMowz|8 years ago
Has this ever actually happened?
clairity|8 years ago
however, it seems to me that journalists are being unusually careful about reporting these abuse allegations because of the exact pitfall you point out. some of the reports cite tens of sources (some named and some unnamed), so they're trying to play it safe when it comes to the reporting.
that's not to say that journalalists are infallible, but that they are taking precautions not to potentially destroy careers based on rumors alone.
on_and_off|8 years ago
I am not even sure what the attitude should be.
By default I would say that when there are serious allegations we should wait until a trial has been conducted.
But there are also cases emerging of dozen of people finally speaking out about an individual, where some kind of opportunistic fabrication seems very unlikely.
How should we balance the 2 ?
auganov|8 years ago
And the destruction is mutual for the most part. The moment the accusation is made, the accuser will experience some stigma too.
As sad as it may be, hardly frightening.
arintoker|8 years ago
FLUX-YOU|8 years ago
I think that traditional avenues have failed victims. This is especially true for Hollywood which has been abusing power long before the tech industry existed (see the exploitation of Judy Garland from the Wizard of Oz)[0].
If there are any false allegations (through evidence or admission), we will need to see how the media treats that. If they don't give it the same coverage as the accused are currently getting, then that's obviously a problem with the media and society. That would clearly be bias and possibly sexist.
If all of these allegations hold true, then the media has successfully done the job where law and society could not.
[0] https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/02/judy-garland-si...
joebolte|8 years ago
Did you read the article you are commenting on?
> "... sources said that the investigation uncovered behaviors by Jurvetson that were unacceptable related to a negative tone toward women entrepreneurs."
So if the article is correct, your claim that there is nothing more than "mere allegations" so far is wrong.
qaq|8 years ago
mikeash|8 years ago
s17n|8 years ago
And let's be clear, he's probably not innocent.
jstarfish|8 years ago
[deleted]
api|8 years ago
It sounds as if lawsuits are going to be filed, which means these claims may get examined in a court of law.
For these reasons I'm inclined to think there's likely something to this. If there isn't then the accuser(s) must have either nothing to lose, a serious axe to grind, or are being paid by someone to do this. These seem unlikely.
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
mafsedan|8 years ago
[deleted]
pecanpie|8 years ago
Back in the days of orkut.com, I do remember Jurvetson making what seemed to me like a huge effort to interact with pretty young women, especially from Estonia. I remember him having a few hundred friends on that service — more than most people there had — a list which included a very large population of pretty, young, single Estonian women.
Keep in mind that I never saw any behavior of his on orkut.com that I would deem harassment, but his social activity there did seem curious to me, considering his married, busy professional status. It was kind of similar to what I saw Marc Canter (of Macromedia fame I guess?) doing there, but again, for neither guy did I witness, or hear, of any harassment going on. it just seemed that what they were doing was merely using their professional status to flirt.
At the time, I figured that their flirting, and their collecting of young female friends, was harmless, and didn't indicate anything untoward going on. Especially since none of my female friends and acquaintances in these guys’ sights intimated to me that anything weird or unwelcome was happening. But now, I'm not so sure, considering how allegations, like the one in the featured article, are bubbling up.
nothrabannosir|8 years ago
God forbid I ever end up in a situation, and find people telling similar, about me. Even if completely true, this could still be irrelevant. How would I feel about my past self indulging in their consumption, as I am tempted to, right now?
How do others feel about this?
Edit: And: does it matter whether it turns out to be a false accusation, like he claims, or a real one? Because if it does (which I think it does), shouldn't we withhold these stories until the verdict is definite? But if it doesn't, then... surely, that can only mean that this comment is irrelevant?
AlexandrB|8 years ago
> Jurvetson is the highest-profile venture capitalist to be forced from his job amid an industrywide evaluation of how Silicon Valley treats women.
And then later.
> The departure comes as Jurvetson was being investigated by his own firm for harassment. An entrepreneur had alleged predatory behavior was “rampant” at DFJ. The woman, Keri Kukral, did not name Jurvetson in her Facebook post.
So the "industrywide evaluation" is individual victims coming forward and reporting past abuse. That's a very charitable take that implies the industry is taking some sort of proactive action.
hkmurakami|8 years ago
This is a much more proactive scenario than the KPCB-Pao situation several years ago.