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.

> You can't take the bad guys money, knowing full well what it cost you AND complain about it.

So basically, if the problem is endemic, you're screwed and you should be happy about it.

You are putting words in my mouth. The problem is powerful people get away with a lot of shit, and the solution is to publicly expose them so they lose face, or AT LEAST stop doing business with them.

If someone continues to do business (and thus helps) with a bad actor, that action of doing business and taking money speaks much louder than any words they may have.

If you genuinely care about sexual harassment but you still take the money, the net effect of that is the bad guy gets another portfolio company and grows stronger. It conveys a childish attitude - a wish for the world to be perfect while taking actions only in your interest, that help the bad guy in this case.

All talk and no action doesn't freaking help anyone, except perhaps the authors reputation. As a society we are all supposed to applaud these people as heroes? Sorry I will save my applause for those who take action - the others have my sympathy the same as millions of other people dealing with bad people.

> If you genuinely care about sexual harassment but you still take the money, the net effect of that is the bad guy gets another portfolio company and grows stronger. It conveys a childish attitude - a wish for the world to be perfect while taking actions only in your interest, that help the bad guy in this case.

I'm sorry, but what you are describing seems, if not childish, incredibly naïve. It presumes a scenario where there is always ample access to opportunity without facing sexual harassment.

That is not even in the same ZIP code. Deciding who to go into business with should be a purely logical decision based on data, gut instinct about the business and the person, and the various innumerable things that a VC investor looks for. Deciding who your romantic partners are is purely subjective based upon the tastes of an individual, and yes that includes women's tastes too.

I think that you rationalize one kind of relationship and romanticize the other just to favor your opinion and I could do the opposite but we can also treat both as social relationships with allegedly mutual interest involved.

There is not even a comparison here. One is how you make money, the other is how you find happiness in whatever form that takes for you. I'm not responding again, this is an unbelievably stupid comparison.

> 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.

Please don't perpetuate prejudice against prostitutes.

>> 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.