> The number of people here who don’t take sexual harassment in the workplace by the CEO of a world-leading company to be a serious, fireable offense—and the fact that so many of you claim to care about things like women’s rights and social justice—is mind-boggling to me.

It's mindboggling that you describe an apparently completely consensual affair as "sexual harassment". That's absurd.

▲

twodave 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe you should expand your understanding of the term, then. It's a well-known thing, especially when it comes to extreme power imbalances.

▲

cubefox 13 hours ago | parent [-]

The term already has a well-established meaning; we shouldn't change our understanding of it. If you mean something else then use different terminology.

Also, I don't think there was an "extreme power imbalance". If anything, she had far more power over him than the other way around, since he had much more to lose and she could blackmail him with making the affair public or other allegations.

▲

twodave 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I am referring to the meaning established in the law. Many things fall under the legal umbrella of sexual harassment. If you want to describe it as something else maybe you should be the one looking for a new term to coin.

▲

cubefox 13 hours ago | parent [-]

No. The law does not describe a consensual relationship with a subordinate as "sexual harassment".

▲

twodave 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Obviously the situation isn't that simple, and neither is the law. If you really want to have a relationship with a subordinate there are legitimate ways to make that happen. He chose to circumvent those (ostensibly repeatedly, and while paying off people who found out about it), and the set of reasonable explanations that don't involve some form of harassment is vanishingly small.

	▲	cubefox 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not just not "vanishingly small", there is zero indication that any sexual harassment was involved.