> If you're really truly worried about false accusations then here's another fix you can have for free: record your meetings, texts, emails, and calls with founders and/or don't meet alone.

It's not so easy. Bullshit accusations leaking on Twitter will be halfway to destroying your career before you even dig up the original recordings, and I doubt anyone will want to listen to your case anyway (if anything, they'll comb over your recordings with a tootbrush to prove you were guilty of this, and a bunch of other things). I too expect VCs to be less willing to expose themselves to such danger.

The smart ones might take more, less competition for the ones with good ideas/products.

Do you know what amazes me about comments like yours? You don't have to agree with a course of action to accept the reality that certain things will happen.

> I expect smart VCs that are interested in making money ... will continue to take lots of meetings with women.

OK, so ON NET what do you expect to happen? Lets say I agree and the smart ones take the meetings, what about the dumb ones? Or the average ones? What is the net result of all those different levels of VCs? Less or more meetings for women?

Again, "You don't have to agree with a course of action to accept the reality that certain things will happen".

> "If you're really truly worried about false accusations then here's another fix you can have for free: record your meetings, texts, emails, and calls with founders and/or don't meet alone."

Well, there are two problems with that.

1 - It puts the burden of proof on the accused. I.E. it totally throws out of the window what has become a de facto human right and an universally established legal one in every democracy: "Innocent until proven guilty", into a: "Guilty until you can shows us some footage that proves you are not guilty" (which let's face it, it's basically impossible if the accuser is lying on purpose and knows how to do things).

2 - In America I think you are free to record other people interacting with you or in your office/home (perhaps some American can clarify this), but in many other countries, specially in most of EU, that's a crime. You can't go around recording people unless they are of public interest and in a public situation or they expressly consent to it.

It may or may not be legal to record conversations in the U.S. depending on the state, and depending on whether or not other people consent to being recorded. California has 2-party consent law when it comes to recording conversations. In other words, it's a crime to record a conversation with another person and not tell them: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+conversaion+recor....

(Law enforcement is exempt from this restriction, of course).

As has been pointed out, no one is suggesting non-consensual recording. Starting a meeting with, "do you mind if I record this?" is hardly alien.

As for burden of proof, I don't see it. It's like saying that asking people to lock their houses is a burden, when thieves are the criminals.

If you are a VC having a meeting with a founder, arrange for for more than 2 people to be there, such as a co-VC, a co-founder, a secretary, or whoever. Are business meetings with 3 people suddenly a human rights violation?

The burden argument seems really disingenuous given the context. This is a business meeting, not picking dinner with your friends, and the process is full of negotiation, records, and witnesses. Would anyone protest writing down terms or having a secretary at the meeting to avoid the chance of a contractual dispute later?

> "As for burden of proof, I don't see it. It's like saying that asking people to lock their houses is a burden, when thieves are the criminals."

This is surely the poorest analogy I've ever read in my all life, comparing a burglar trying to enter your house with someone falsely accusing you of something.

What about the burden of proof you don't see if you go casually dressed to shop in some fancy shop and they falsely accuse you of trying to shoplift and you - oh bummer - didn't record everything?

You also don't see any burden of proof on you if you go to some corrupt country and the police falsely stops you for speeding and you didn't record your all trip after the moment you got there (though luck, if you didn't record everything is because you surely did something wrong)? You don't see that burden of proof on you, right?

> I expect less VCs to take meetings with women, sadly. Why? There's a really simple procedure that can solve these problems: Don't hit on, feel-up, or try to have sex with people you're in a professional business relationship with. That goes double for people you hold power over (managers to employees, VCs to Founders, etc). If you're really truly worried about false accusations then here's another fix you can have for free: record your meetings, texts, emails, and calls with founders and/or don't meet alone.

You simply expose your naivete.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

Any recordings done without the approval of the other party are illegal (opening you up to legal actions) and are completely inadmissible in court.

The previous comment didn't allude to illegal recording of conversations without consent. The suggestion was to ensure there was a record of all interactions.

If I'm a VC and I've scheduled a meeting at my office it is as simple as letting the party I'm meeting with know that I had planned on recording for my archives.

Nothing unusual or sketchy about the request, especially in a business setting.

If you're a VC, you can just ask if it's okay that you record the meeting for record-keeping or pick-your-reason.